This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-993
entitled 'Democracy Assistance: U.S. Agencies Take Steps to Coordinate
International Programs but Lack Information on Some U.S.-funded
Activities' which was released on September 28, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
September 2009:
Democracy Assistance:
U.S. Agencies Take Steps to Coordinate International Programs but Lack
Information on Some U.S.-funded Activities:
GAO-09-993:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-993, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In fiscal years 2006-2008, the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), which has primary responsibility for promoting
democracy abroad, implemented democracy assistance projects in about 90
countries. The Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights
and Labor (State DRL) and the private, nonprofit National Endowment for
Democracy (NED) also fund democracy programs in many of these
countries.
Partly to lessen the risk of duplicative programs, State recently
initiated efforts to reform and consolidate State and USAID foreign
assistance processes. GAO reviewed (1) democracy assistance funding
provided by USAID, State DRL, and NED in fiscal year 2008; (2) USAID,
State DRL, and NED efforts to coordinate their democracy assistance;
and (3) USAID efforts to assess results and evaluate the impact of its
democracy assistance. GAO analyzed U.S. funding and evaluation
documents, interviewed USAID, State, and NED officials in the United
States and abroad, and reviewed specific democracy projects in 10
countries.
What GAO Found:
Data available from State show total democracy assistance allocations
of about $2.25 billion for fiscal year 2008. More than $1.95 billion,
or about 85 percent of the total allocation, was provided to field-
based operating units, primarily country missions. Although complete
data on USAID funding per country were not available, USAID mission
data, compiled by State and USAID at GAO’s request, show that in a
sample of 10 countries, most democracy funds are programmed by USAID.
In the 10 countries, annual funding per project averaged more than $2
million for USAID, $350,000 for State DRL, and $100,000 for NED. In
fiscal year 2008, more than half of State funding for democracy
assistance went to Iraq, followed by China, Cuba, Iran, and North
Korea, and NED funding for democracy programs was highest for China,
Iraq, Russia, Burma, and Pakistan.
USAID and State DRL coordinate to help ensure complementary assistance
but are often not aware of NED grants. To prevent duplicative programs,
State DRL obtains feedback from USAID missions and embassies on project
proposals before awarding democracy assistance grants. State DRL
officials generally do not participate in USAID missions’ planning
efforts; some State and USAID officials told GAO that geographic
distances between State DRL’s centrally managed program and USAID’s
country mission-based programs would make such participation difficult.
Several USAID and State DRL officials responsible for planning and
managing democracy assistance told GAO that they lacked information on
NED’s current projects, which they believed would help inform their own
programming decisions. Although NED is not required to report on all of
its democracy assistance efforts to State and there currently is no
mechanism for regular information sharing, NED told GAO that it has
shared information with State and USAID and would routinely provide
them with information on current projects if asked.
USAID uses standard and custom indicators to assess and report on
immediate program results; USAID also conducts some, but relatively
infrequent, independent evaluations of longer-term programs. The
standard indicators, developed by State, generally focus on numbers of
activities or immediate results of a program, while custom indicators
measure additional program results. USAID commissions a limited number
of independent evaluations of program impact. USAID mission officials
told GAO that they did not conduct many independent evaluations of
democracy assistance because of the resources involved in the
undertaking and the difficulty of measuring impact in the area of
democracy assistance. In response to a 2008 National Research Council
report on USAID’s democracy evaluation capacity, USAID has reported
initiating several steps—for example, designing impact evaluations for
six missions as part of a pilot program.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that, to enhance coordination of U.S.-funded democracy
assistance, the Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator work
jointly with NED to establish a mechanism to routinely collect
information about NED’s current projects in countries where NED and
State or USAID provide democracy assistance. These entities concurred
with our recommendation.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-993] or key
components. For more information, contact David Gootnick at (202) 512-
3149 or goodnickd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Data Show Largest Allocations for USAID Democracy Assistance:
USAID and State DRL Coordinate to Help Ensure Complementary Programs
but Often Are Not Aware of NED Projects:
USAID Uses Standard and Custom Indicators to Assess and Report
Democracy Assistance Results and Provides Some Independent Evaluations
of Impacts:
Conclusion:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Country Funding Levels and Freedom House Ratings:
Appendix III: Democracy Assistance Provided by MEPI, State INL, and
MCC:
Appendix IV: Listing of Field-Based and Washington, D.C.-Based
Operating Units:
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
Development:
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of State:
Appendix VII: Comments from the National Endowment for Democracy:
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: GJD Program Areas and Program Elements:
Table 2: Total GJD Funding and Freedom House Rating for Top 20
Countries, Fiscal Years 2006-2008:
Table 3: Global USAID Democracy Funding and Projects by Implementing
Mechanism, Fiscal Year 2008:
Table 4: Example of GJD Element-Level Standard Indicators:
Table 5: National Research Council Recommendations and USAID Reported
Actions:
Table 6: USAID, State DRL, and NED Funding by Country for Fiscal Years
2006-2008:
Table 7: Ten Highest GJD-funded Countries not including Iraq and
Afghanistan, Fiscal Years 2006-2008:
Table 8: MCC Democracy-Related Threshold Grants to Date:
Table 9: Operating Units Receiving GJD Funds between FY 2006 and FY
2008, and Status as Field-Based or Washington, D.C.-Based Operating
Unit:
Figures:
Figure 1: Distribution of GJD Funding, Fiscal Years 2006-2008:
Figure 2: GJD Funding by Operating Unit, Fiscal Year 2008:
Figure 3: GJD Funding by Program Area, Fiscal Year 2008:
Figure 4: Average Annual Funding, Number and Duration of USAID, State
DRL, and NED Democracy Projects in 10 Sample Countries:
Figure 5: Annualized Funding, Number and Duration of USAID, State DRL,
and NED Democracy Projects in 10 Sample Countries:
Figure 6: Countries with the Largest Percentage of Funding from State
DRL and NED, Fiscal Year 2008:
Abbreviations:
CAS: country assistance strategies:
EUR/ACE: Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and
Eurasia:
FACTS: Foreign Assistance Coordination and Tracking System:
GJD: Governing Justly and Democratically:
MCC: Millennium Challenge Corporation:
MEPI: Middle East Partnership Initiative:
NED: National Endowment for Democracy:
State: Department of State:
State DRL: Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor:
State/F: Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance:
State INL: Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
Affairs:
USAID: U.S. Agency for International Development:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 28, 2009:
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy:
Chairman:
The Honorable Judd Gregg:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs:
Committee on Appropriations United States Senate:
The Honorable Nita M. Lowey:
Chairwoman:
The Honorable Kay Granger:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs:
Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives:
The U.S. government supports democracy promotion activities in every
geographic region of the world, including many countries where
political and civil rights are limited. In fiscal years 2006 through
2008, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the agency
primarily responsible for providing democracy assistance abroad,
implemented democracy activities in about 90 countries. The Department
of State's Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (State DRL) and
the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a nongovernmental,
nonprofit organization funded through a congressional appropriation,
also supported U.S.-funded democracy assistance programs in many of
these countries.[Footnote 1]
In 2006, citing the risk of conflicting or redundant efforts and wasted
resources among U.S. foreign assistance programs,[Footnote 2] State
initiated efforts to reform and consolidate State and USAID foreign
assistance processes.[Footnote 3] These efforts included establishing
the Office of the Director of Foreign Assistance (State/F) to, among
other duties, coordinate State's, USAID's, and other U.S. foreign
assistance efforts. To help target U.S. government resources more
efficiently and effectively, State/F developed the Foreign Assistance
Framework with five strategic objectives, one of which--"Governing
Justly and Democratically" (GJD)--encompasses democracy assistance.
[Footnote 4] In 2008, acknowledging a need to improve the effectiveness
of its democracy assistance programs, USAID's Office of Democracy and
Governance commissioned a study by the National Research Council to
improve methods for evaluating the effectiveness and impact of these
programs.[Footnote 5] In July 2009, the Secretary of State announced
plans for a Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review--a
comprehensive assessment of current approaches to diplomacy and
development intended to, among other things, strengthen coordination
between State and USAID and provide recommendations on better
evaluating impacts of U.S. foreign assistance.
As directed by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, this
report provides an overview of U.S.-funded international democracy
assistance efforts. Specifically, this report (1) describes democracy
assistance funding provided by USAID, State DRL, and NED in fiscal year
2008; (2) examines USAID, State DRL, and NED efforts to coordinate
their democracy assistance activities to ensure complementary
programming; and (3) describes USAID efforts to assess results and
evaluate the impact of its democracy assistance activities.[Footnote 6]
In conducting our work, we analyzed funding, planning, and programmatic
documents and data describing U.S. democracy assistance activities
provided by USAID, State DRL, and NED in fiscal years 2006 through
2008.[Footnote 7] We conducted audit work in Washington, D.C., and in
three countries--Indonesia, Jordan, and Russia--with large democracy
funding levels and assistance from several U.S. entities; in these
three countries, we met with USAID and State officials responsible for
democracy assistance programs, officials from nongovernmental
organizations that implement these programs, and country government
officials in two of the three countries we visited. We also collected
information on democracy programs in seven additional countries--China,
Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Kosovo, Lebanon, Nicaragua, and
Pakistan; as a result, we collected detailed information on U.S.
democracy programs in a total of 10 geographically diverse countries
with large GJD funding levels and where multiple U.S. agencies or
organizations provide democracy assistance.[Footnote 8] We excluded
Iraq and Afghanistan from our sample, despite the large democracy
assistance funding levels there, because of the unique circumstances in
those countries. To obtain the views of USAID mission officials in our
10 sample countries regarding interagency coordination and project
monitoring and evaluation, we conducted an e-mail survey of all 35
USAID technical officers with responsibility for managing active
democracy and governance grants in these countries, receiving 31
responses, from April to June 2009 (a response rate of 89 percent). We
also interviewed State DRL policy and program officers responsible for
managing the bureau's democracy grants in the 10 countries. In
describing USAID efforts to assess results and evaluate the impact of
its democracy assistance activities, we focused our analysis on USAID's
projects because they typically represented the majority of U.S.-funded
assistance and because State DRL and NED generally do not conduct
impact evaluations. We reviewed USAID performance reports for active
projects, USAID missions' strategic assessments of democracy and
governance, and project evaluations in the 10 countries. We also
reviewed findings from the 2008 National Research Council study of
USAID democracy assistance evaluation; however, we did not assess the
study or USAID actions in response to the study.[Footnote 9] (See
appendix I for a detailed discussion of our objectives, scope, and
methodology.)
We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to September
2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
Data available from State/F show total democracy assistance allocations
of about $2.25 billion for fiscal year 2008. Approximately $306
million, or almost 15 percent of the total allocation, was allocated to
operating units in Washington, D.C., including USAID and State regional
and functional bureaus, and to offices such as State DRL; more than
$1.95 billion, or about 85 percent of the total allocation, went to
field-based operating units, primarily country missions.[Footnote 10]
The State/F data systems do not include funding information by
implementing entity for the years we reviewed, and complete data on
USAID funding per country were not available;[Footnote 11] however,
USAID mission data that State/F and USAID provided at our request show
that in our 10 sample countries, most democracy funds are programmed by
USAID. The estimated average annual funding for democracy assistance
projects active in our 10 sample countries as of January 2009 was about
$18 million for USAID, $3 million for State DRL, and $2 million for
NED; annual funding per project averaged more than $2 million for
USAID, $350,000 for State DRL, and $100,000 for NED. In fiscal year
2008, more than half of State DRL funding for democracy assistance went
to Iraq, followed by China, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, and NED
funding for democracy programs was highest for China, Iraq, Russia,
Burma, and Pakistan.
USAID and State DRL coordinate to help ensure complementary democracy
assistance programs but often are not aware of NED projects. In our 10
sample countries, a key mechanism for preventing duplicative
programming involved State DRL's efforts to obtain feedback from USAID
missions and embassies on project solicitations and proposals before
awarding democracy assistance grants. USAID officials at the 10
missions we contacted generally agreed that this mechanism helps to
ensure complementary programming. Conversely, while each mission's
planning efforts may involve other U.S. stakeholders in the country,
such as staff from the embassy's political and public affairs sections,
these efforts generally do not involve State DRL officials managing
democracy projects from Washington, D.C. State DRL officials
responsible for managing democracy projects in our 10 sample countries
generally indicated that their participation in USAID missions'
planning processes would improve coordination. However, State and USAID
officials noted that geographic distances between State DRL's centrally
managed program and USAID's country mission-based programs would make
such coordination difficult. Although NED is not required to report all
of its democracy assistance efforts to State, several USAID and State
DRL officials said that they lacked information about NED's current
projects, which they believed would help inform their own programming
decisions. No mechanism currently exists for the routine sharing of
information on NED's projects. NED officials told us that NED has
shared information on its activities in the past and would be willing
to provide project information routinely if State or USAID deemed it
useful.
USAID uses standard and custom indicators to assess and report on
immediate program outputs and outcomes; USAID also conducts some, but
relatively infrequent, independent evaluations of longer-term program
impacts and reports taking steps to improve its evaluation capacity.
[Footnote 12] The standard indicators, developed by State/F with input
from subject matter experts in State DRL and USAID's Office of
Democracy and Governance, generally focus on numbers of activities or
immediate results of a program, such as the number of justice sector
personnel trained by the U.S. government. USAID typically develops
additional custom indicators to better assess particular projects,
measuring program results not captured by the standard indicators. For
example, in Jordan a custom indicator for a democracy assistance
project measured improvement in the capacity of the legislative branch
and elected local bodies to undertake their stated functions. USAID
commissions a limited number of independent evaluations of democracy
assistance program impact. USAID mission officials we met with noted
they did not conduct many independent evaluations because of the
resources involved and the difficulty of measuring the impact of
democracy assistance. USAID reports initiating several steps in
response to findings and recommendations in the National Research
Council's 2008 report on USAID's democracy evaluation capacity. For
example, USAID is designing impact evaluations for six missions as part
of a pilot program with the goal of better identifying the effects of
the missions' democracy assistance programs.
To enhance coordination of U.S.-funded democracy assistance efforts,
and in support of the Department of State's first Quadrennial Diplomacy
and Development Review, we recommend that the Secretary of State and
the USAID Administrator, while recognizing NED's status as a private,
nonprofit organization, work jointly with NED to establish a mechanism
to routinely collect information about NED's current projects in
countries where NED and State or USAID provide democracy assistance.
We provided a draft of this report to State, USAID, and NED for review
and comment. All three entities concurred with our recommendation.
Background:
Foreign Assistance Reform:
In January 2006, to better align foreign assistance programs with U.S.
foreign policy goals, the Secretary of State appointed a Director of
Foreign Assistance with authority over all State and USAID foreign
assistance funding and programs.[Footnote 13] In working to reform
foreign assistance, the Director's office, State/F, has taken a number
of steps to integrate State and USAID foreign assistance processes.
These steps have included, among others, integrating State and USAID
foreign assistance budget formulation, planning and reporting
processes. As part of the reform, State/F, with input from State and
USAID subject matter experts, developed the Foreign Assistance
Framework, with its five strategic objectives, as a tool for targeting
U.S. foreign assistance resources; instituted common program
definitions to collect, track, and report on data related to foreign
assistance program funding and results; and created a set of standard
output-oriented indicators for assessing foreign assistance programs.
State/F also instituted annual operational planning and reporting
processes for all State and USAID operating units. Moreover, State/F
initiated a pilot program for developing 5-year country assistance
strategies intended to ensure that foreign assistance provided by all
U.S. agencies is aligned with top foreign policy objectives in a given
country. These integrated processes are supported by two data
information systems, known as the Foreign Assistance Coordination and
Tracking System (FACTS) and FACTS Info.[Footnote 14]
In July 2009, the Secretary of State announced plans to conduct a
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, intended in part to
maximize collaboration between State and USAID. According to State,
this review will identify overarching foreign policy and development
objectives, specific policy priorities, and expected results. In
addition, the review will make recommendations on strategy,
organizational and management reforms, tools and resources, and
performance measures to assess outcomes and--where feasible--impacts of
U.S. foreign assistance. The review will be managed by a senior
leadership team under the direction of the Secretary of State and led
by the Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, with the
Administrator of USAID and the Director of the Policy Planning serving
as co-chairs and with senior representation from State and USAID.
[Footnote 15] Although State has not announced a formal time frame for
producing a final report of the review's results, a senior State
official indicated that the process would likely produce initial
results in early 2010.
Democracy Assistance and the Foreign Assistance Framework:
Under the Foreign Assistance Framework developed by State/F in 2006,
the strategic objective GJD has four program areas--"Rule of Law and
Human Rights," "Good Governance," "Political Competition and Consensus-
Building," and "Civil Society"--each with a number of program elements
and sub-elements. State/F's information systems, FACTS and FACTS Info,
track funding allocated for assistance in support of GJD and these four
program areas. Table 1 shows the four program areas and associated
program elements.
Table 1: GJD Program Areas and Program Elements:
Program area: Rule of Law and Human Rights; To advance and protect
human and individual rights, and to promote societies in which the
state and its citizens are accountable to laws that are publicly
promulgated, equally enforced, and independently adjudicated, and which
are consistent with international norms and standards;
Program elements:
* Constitutions, laws and human rights;
* Judicial independence;
* Justice system;
* Human rights.
Program area: Good Governance; To promote democratic institutions that
are effective, responsive, sustainable, and accountable to the people;
Program elements:
* Legislative function and processes;
* Public sector executive function;
* Local government and decentralization;
* Anticorruption reforms;
* Governance and security sector.
Program area: Political Competition and Consensus Building; To
encourage the development of transparent and inclusive electoral and
political processes, and democratic, responsive, and effective
political parties;
Program elements:
* Consensus-building processes;
* Election and political processes;
* Political parties.
Program area: Civil Society; To empower individuals to exercise
peacefully their rights of expression, association, and assembly,
including through their establishing and participating in NGOs, unions,
and other civil society organizations;
Program elements:
* Civic participation;
* Media freedom and freedom of information.
Source: State/USAID Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2007-2012 and State's
Handbook of GJD Indicators and Definitions.
[End of table]
Funding Allocations for Democracy Assistance:
In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, funds allocated for the GJD
strategic objective were provided for democracy assistance programs in
90 countries around the world. Almost half of all democracy funding
over this period was spent in Iraq and Afghanistan; the next highest
funded countries, Sudan, Egypt, Mexico, Colombia, and Russia, accounted
for more than 25 percent of the remaining GJD funding allocated to
individual countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan. Of the 20
countries with the largest GJD allocations, 8 have been rated by
Freedom House, an independent nongovernmental organization, as not
free; 8 have been rated as partly free; and 4 have been rated as free.
[Footnote 16] Figure 1 illustrates the worldwide distribution of GJD
funding, and table 2 shows funding levels and Freedom House ratings for
the 20 countries with the largest allocations.
Figure 1: Distribution of GJD Funding, Fiscal Years 2006-2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: map of the world]
The map indicates the following:
Countries receiving GJD funds;
Countries not receiving GJD funds.
Sources: GAO analysis of State/F data; Map Resources, CIA, and UN
(map).
[End of figure]
Table 2: Total GJD Funding and Freedom House Rating for Top 20
Countries, Fiscal Years 2006-2008 (Dollars in thousands):
Country: Iraq; Dollars in thousands:
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $1,752,588;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Afghanistan;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $935,307;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Sudan;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $208,373;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Egypt;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $154,800;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Mexico;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $119,680;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Colombia;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $118,928;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Russia;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $117,734;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Kosovo;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $92,747;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Pakistan;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $91,873;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Liberia;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $81,150;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Indonesia;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $79,663;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: West Bank and Gaza;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $74,493;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Ukraine;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $71,567;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Cuba;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $68,914;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Haiti;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $65,880;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Georgia;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $63,464;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Serbia;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $60,754;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Armenia;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $56,887;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $53,466;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Jordan;
GJD FY 2006-2008 funding: $53,206;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Source: GAO analysis of State/F data and Freedom House's an annual
survey of the state of global freedom for 2009.
Note: The GJD funding shown for each country does not include amounts
that Washington, D.C.-based operating units, such as State DRL, and
regional operating units, such as USAID regional offices, may have
programmed in the country. The data available from State/F shows
allocations to country based operating units and do not include amounts
of the allocated funds that these regional and cross-cutting operating
units program in individual countries.
[End of table]
Key Entities Involved in Providing U.S.-funded Democracy Assistance:
USAID, State DRL, and NED fund democracy assistance programs in
countries throughout the world. USAID's and State DRL's foreign
assistance programs are funded under the Foreign Operations
appropriation and tracked by State as part of GJD funding, while NED's
core budget is funded under the State Operations appropriation and is
not tracked as part of GJD foreign assistance funding.
* U.S. Agency for International Development. In fiscal years 2006
through 2008, USAID democracy programs operated in 88 countries
worldwide. USAID's Office of Democracy and Governance, based in
Washington, D.C., supports USAID's democracy programs worldwide, but
these programs are primarily designed and managed by USAID missions in
the field. USAID democracy programs cover a large variety of issues
including media, labor, judicial reforms, local governance, legislative
strengthening, and elections. USAID programs are managed by technical
officers, typically based in missions in the field, who develop
strategies and assessments, design programs, and monitor the
performance of projects by collecting and reviewing performance reports
from implementing partners and conducting site visits, typically at
least monthly.
* Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. State DRL implements the
Human Rights Democracy Fund, established in fiscal year 1998, providing
grants primarily to U.S. nonprofit organizations to strengthen
democratic institutions, promote human rights, and build civil society
mainly in fragile democracies and authoritarian states. In 2006 through
2008, State DRL's programs operated in 66 countries worldwide.
According to State, State DRL strives to fund innovative programs
focused on providing immediate short term assistance in response to
emerging events. In addition, State DRL can also fill gaps in USAID
democracy funding (see appendix II). Unlike USAID, State DRL manages
its democracy grant program centrally. State DRL's Washington-based
staff monitor these grants by collecting and reviewing quarterly
reports from grantees and conducting site visits, typically through
annual visits to participating countries.[Footnote 17]
* National Endowment for Democracy. In 1983, Congress authorized
initial funding for NED, a private, nonprofit, nongovernmental
organization.[Footnote 18] NED's core budget is funded primarily
through an annual congressional appropriation and NED receives
additional funding from State to support congressionally directed or
discretionary programs.[Footnote 19] The legislation recognizing the
creation of NED and authorizing its funding, known as the NED Act,
requires NED to report annually to Congress on its operations,
activities, and accomplishments as well as on the results of an
independent financial audit.[Footnote 20] The act does not require NED
to report to State on the use of its core appropriation; however, State
requires NED to provide quarterly financial reporting and annual
programmatic reporting on the use of the congressionally directed and
discretionary grants it receives from State.[Footnote 21] NED funds
indigenous partners with grants that typically last for about a year.
NED monitors program activities through quarterly program and financial
reports from grantees and site visits, performed on average about once
per year, to verify program and budgetary information. About half of
NED's total annual core grant funding is awarded to four affiliated
organizations, known as core institutes.[Footnote 22] The remaining
funds are used to provide hundreds of grants to NGOs in more than 90
countries to promote human rights, independent media, rule of law,
civic education, and the development of civil society in general.
Data Show Largest Allocations for USAID Democracy Assistance:
State/F information systems show allocations of approximately $2.25
billion in GJD funding to operating units in fiscal year 2008, with
about 85 percent of this amount allocated for State and USAID field-
based operating units, primarily country missions. The estimated
average annualized funding for democracy assistance projects active in
our 10 sample countries as of January 2009 was $18 million for USAID,
$3 million for State DRL, and $2 million for NED. In fiscal year 2008,
more than half of State DRL funding for democracy assistance went to
Iraq, followed by China, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, and most NED
funding for democracy programs went to China, Iraq, Russia, Burma, and
Pakistan.
Most Democracy Funding Allocated to Field-Based Operating Units:
Data from State/F information systems, which report GJD allocations by
operating unit, indicate that most GJD funding allocated in fiscal year
2008 went to country programs. The State/F systems show that, of more
than $2.25 billion allocated for GJD in fiscal year 2008, approximately
$306 million, or almost 15 percent, went to operating units in
Washington, D.C., including USAID and State regional and functional
bureaus and offices such as State DRL. More than $1.95 billion, or
about 85 percent of the total allocation, was allocated to field-based
operating units, primarily country missions. (See figure 2 for the
allocation of GJD funding by type of operating unit, for fiscal year
2008. See appendix IV for a list of Washington, D.C.-based and field-
based operating units that received GJD funds in fiscal years 2006-
2008.)
Figure 2: GJD Funding by Operating Unit, Fiscal Year 2008 (Dollars in
millions):
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Field-based operating units, $1,953: 87%;
Washington-based operating units: Other, $138: 6%;
Washington-based operating units: State DRL[A], $168: 7%.
Source: GAO analysis of State/F data.
[A] The amount shown for the State DRL allocation for fiscal year 2008
reflects State DRL-managed funding for that year for all countries
except Iraq and also reflects NED's core appropriation. State/F
categorizes State DRL-managed funds for Iraq as part of the Iraq
operating unit; therefore, our analysis includes State DRL-managed
funds for Iraq as part of the field-based operating units rather than
the State DRL operating unit. In addition, because NED core funding was
appropriated through the Foreign Operations account in fiscal year
2008, NED core funding for that year is included in the amount
allocated for the State DRL operating unit. (In previous years other
than fiscal year 2008, NED's core appropriation was not appropriated
under the Foreign Operations account and therefore is not included in
the GJD foreign assistance totals for all other years.)
[End of figure]
Figure 3 shows the distribution of democracy assistance funding for the
four GJD program areas.
Figure 3: GJD Funding by Program Area, Fiscal Year 2008 (Dollars in
millions):
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Good Governance, $762: 34%;
Political Competition and Consensus Building, $295: 13%;
Civil Society, $593: 26%;
Rule of Law and Human Rights, $608: 27%.
Source: GAO analysis of State/F data.
[End of figure]
Although State/F information systems enable reporting of democracy
assistance allocations to operating units and by program area, these
systems do not include funding information by implementing entity for
the years we reviewed--fiscal years 2006 through 2008.[Footnote 23]
Consequently, State/F data on GJD funding allocations to implementing
entities--including the portion of allocations to field-based operating
units that is programmed by each implementing entity--are not centrally
located.[Footnote 24] However, in response to our request for
information on USAID democracy assistance funding, State/F and USAID
compiled data provided by USAID missions on GJD funding allocated to
USAID for most country-based operating units for fiscal years 2006
through 2008.[Footnote 25] According to these data, USAID implements
the majority of the democracy funding provided in most countries. In
addition, State/F data show that the largest portion of GJD funding in
fiscal year 2008 was allocated for the Good Governance program area
(see figure 3). (appendix II shows amounts of USAID, State DRL, and NED
funding distributed to all countries in fiscal years 2006-2008 as well
as each country's Freedom House rating.)
USAID Funded Most Democracy Assistance in 10 Sample Countries:
Estimated average annualized funding for all active democracy
assistance projects in the 10 sample countries was about $18 million
per year for USAID (78 percent of the total estimated average annual
funding for all three entities), $3 million for State DRL, and $2
million for NED. Annualized funding per project averaged more than $2
million for USAID; more than $350,000 for State DRL; and more than
$100,000 for NED. Project length averaged 3 years for USAID, 2 years
for State DRL, and 1 year for NED (see figure 4).
Figure 4: Average Annual Funding, Number and Duration of USAID, State
DRL, and NED Democracy Projects in 10 Sample Countries:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Total for all countries:
China;
Democratic Republic of Congo;
Haiti;
Indonesia;
Jordan;
Kosovo;
Lebanon;
Nicaragua;
Pakistan;
Russia.
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage):
USAID: 78%;
State/DRL: 13%;
NED: 8%.
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands):
USAID: $2,262;
State/DRL: $356;
NED: $112.
Average number of active projects:
USAID: 10;
State/DRL: 8;
NED: 19.
Average length of project (in years):
USAID: 3.2;
State/DRL: 2.0;
NED: 1.1.
Sources: GAO analysis of USAID, State/DRL, and NED data.
Note: This analysis is based on the set of USAID, State DRL, and NED
democracy projects that were active in each of the 10 countries during
January 2009. To compare the projects with varying duration and funding
levels, we (1) annualized funding of active projects by averaging the
monthly cost of each project (total project funding divided by the
length of the project in months) and multiplying by 12; (2) annualized
the funding for each portfolio by summing the annualized funding for
each project in the portfolio; and (3) determined the average length of
projects in years by multiplying by 12 the planned length of active
projects in months.
[End of figure]
According to award data for USAID, State DRL, and NED, USAID provided
the majority of funding for democracy assistance projects that were
active as of January 2009 in 9 of the 10 sample countries (see figure
5).[Footnote 26] USAID funding ranged from 10 to 94 percent, with a
median of 89 percent, of the three entities' total democracy assistance
funding in each country.
Figure 5: Annualized Funding, Number and Duration of USAID, State DRL,
and NED Democracy Projects in 10 Sample Countries:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Country: China;
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage):
USAID: 10%;
State/DRL: 66%;
NED: 23%;
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands):
USAID: $660;
State/DRL: $404;
NED: $115;
Number of active projects:
USAID: 4;
State/DRL: 42;
NED: 52;
Average length of project (in years):
USAID: 3.0;
State/DRL: 2.5;
NED: 1.0;
USAID funding by program area (percentage):
Rule of Law: 100%;
Civil Society: 0;
Political Competition: 0;
Good Governance: 0.
Country: Democratic Republic of Congo;
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage):
USAID: 83%;
State/DRL: 6%;
NED: 10%;
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands):
USAID: $2,711;
State/DRL: $347;
NED: $45;
Number of active projects:
USAID: 5;
State/DRL: 3;
NED: 38;
Average length of project (in years):
USAID: 2.3;
State/DRL: 2.3;
NED: 1.0;
USAID funding by program area (percentage):
Rule of Law: 70%;
Civil Society: 10$;
Political Competition: 0;
Good Governance: 20%.
Country: Haiti;
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage):
USAID: 94%;
State/DRL: 2%;
NED: 5%;
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands):
USAID: $2,074;
State/DRL: $323;
NED: $68;
Number of active projects:
USAID: 9;
State/DRL: 1;
NED: 14;
Average length of project (in years):
USAID: 3.0;
State/DRL: 2.0;
NED: 1.0;
USAID funding by program area (percentage):
Rule of Law: 26%;
Civil Society: 27%;
Political Competition: 9%;
Good Governance: 38%.
Country: Indonesia;
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage):
USAID: 91%;
State/DRL: 4%;
NED: 5%;
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands):
USAID: $3,152;
State/DRL: $281;
NED: $261;
Number of active projects:
USAID: 9;
State/DRL: 4;
NED: 6;
Average length of project (in years):
USAID: 3.2;
State/DRL: 2.3;
NED: 1.7;
USAID funding by program area (percentage):
Rule of Law: 21%;
Civil Society: 3%;
Political Competition: 6%;
Good Governance: 70%.
Country: Jordan;
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage):
USAID: 93%;
State/DRL: 1%;
NED: 6%;
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands):
USAID: $2,274;
State/DRL: $224;
NED: $136;
Number of active projects:
USAID: 8;
State/DRL: 1;
NED: 8;
Average length of project (in years):
USAID: 3.5;
State/DRL: 2.0;
NED: 1.0;
USAID funding by program area (percentage):
Rule of Law: 25%;
Civil Society: 33%;
Political Competition: 19%;
Good Governance: 23%.
Country: Kosovo;
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage):
USAID: 92%;
State/DRL: 6%;
NED: 2%;
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands):
USAID: $2,282;
State/DRL: $216;
NED: $63;
Number of active projects:
USAID: 7;
State/DRL: 5;
NED: 5;
Average length of project (in years):
USAID: 2.7;
State/DRL: 1.9;
NED: 1.0;
USAID funding by program area (percentage):
Rule of Law: 50%;
Civil Society: 16%;
Political Competition: 3%;
Good Governance: 31%.
Country: Lebanon;
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage):
USAID: 96%;
State/DRL: 11%;
NED: 3%;
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands):
USAID: $3,041;
State/DRL: $444;
NED: $112;
Number of active projects:
USAID: 8;
State/DRL: 7;
NED: 7;
Average length of project (in years):
USAID: 4.0;
State/DRL: 1.9;
NED: 1.0;
USAID funding by program area (percentage):
Rule of Law: 10%;
Civil Society: 16%;
Political Competition: 9%;
Good Governance: 65%.
Country: Nicaragua;
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage):
USAID: 91%;
State/DRL: 3%;
NED: 6%;
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands):
USAID: $1,945;
State/DRL: $373;
NED: $62;
Number of active projects:
USAID: 5;
State/DRL: 1;
NED: 10;
Average length of project (in years):
USAID: 3.0;
State/DRL: 0.7;
NED: 1.0;
USAID funding by program area (percentage):
Rule of Law: 31%;
Civil Society: 2%;
Political Competition: 42%;
Good Governance: 25%.
Country: Pakistan;
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage):
USAID: 75%;
State/DRL: 12%;
NED: 13%;
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands):
USAID: $3,649;
State/DRL: $398;
NED: $166;
Number of active projects:
USAID: 5;
State/DRL: 7;
NED: 19;
Average length of project (in years):
USAID: 2.4;
State/DRL: 2.3;
NED: 1.3;
USAID funding by program area (percentage):
Rule of Law: 0;
Civil Society: 0;
Political Competition: 21%;
Good Governance: 79%.
Country: Russia;
Annual funding of portfolio (percentage):
USAID: 83%;
State/DRL: 9%;
NED: 8%;
Average annual funding per project (dollars in thousands):
USAID: $834;
State/DRL: $550;
NED: $87;
Number of active projects:
USAID: 36;
State/DRL: 6;
NED: 32;
Average length of project (in years):
USAID: 5.0;
State/DRL: 1.8;
NED: 1.0;
USAID funding by program area (percentage):
Rule of Law: 27%;
Civil Society: 52%;
Political Competition: 8%;
Good Governance: 13%.
Sources: GAO analysis of USAID, State/DRL, and NED data; Map Resources
(maps).
Note: This analysis is based on the set of USAID, State DRL, and NED
democracy projects that were active in each of the 10 countries during
January 2009. To compare the projects with varying duration and funding
levels, we (1) annualized funding of active projects by averaging the
monthly cost of each project (total project funding divided by the
length of the project in months) and multiplying by 12; (2) annualized
the funding for each portfolio by summing the annualized funding for
each project in the portfolio; and (3) determined the average length of
projects in years by multiplying by 12 the planned length of active
projects in months.
These charts do not include funding implemented by State INL, MEPI, or
MCC at the country level. For information on the funding for these
agencies, see appendix III.
[End of figure]
USAID's country-based missions are typically responsible for developing
democracy assistance activities based on country-specific multiyear
democracy assistance strategies, which they develop in the field with
input from embassy officials as well as USAID and State offices in
Washington, D.C. Once the strategic plan is approved, individual
programs are designed to fit into the overall priorities and objectives
laid out in the strategic plan. This program design includes the
procedures to select the implementer and to monitor and evaluate
program performance. USAID missions typically collaborate with the
USAID Office of Democracy and Governance to develop and carry out in-
depth democracy and governance assessments to help define these
strategies.[Footnote 27] These assessments are intended to identify
core democracy and governance problems and the primary actors and
institutions in a country. For example, the USAID mission in Indonesia
conducted a democracy and governance assessment in June 2008, which
formed the basis for a new 5-year democracy and governance strategy for
2009 to 2014. The assessment, which was commissioned by the USAID
Office of Democracy and Governance and conducted by an outside
contractor, involved consultation with more than 100 Indonesian
government officials, civil society representatives, local academics,
and other international donors involved in democracy and governance in
Indonesia.
USAID democracy activities vary in each country, according to the
operating environment, needs and opportunities. For example, as of
January 2009, USAID's democracy assistance portfolio in Lebanon
amounted to $24.3 million on an annual basis. The majority of this
funding--65 percent--was awarded for Good Governance activities such as
assistance to the Lebanese Parliament, and programs to improve service
delivery through municipal capacity building. In Indonesia, about 70
percent of USAID funding for projects active in January 2009 was for
Good Governance-related assistance to help the Indonesian government
with a major effort to decentralize its government. Conversely, in
Russia, where USAID does not work closely with the Russian government,
over 50 percent of USAID funding supported Civil Society programs and
only about 13 percent of funding supported active projects in the area
of Good Governance.
USAID implements approximately half of the value of its democracy
programs using grants and implements the remaining half using
contracts. Worldwide, USAID democracy contract funding tends to be much
higher than USAID grant funding; in fiscal year 2008, democracy
contract funding averaged about $2 million per project and democracy
grant funding averaged almost $850,000 per project. However, USAID
implements more than twice as many projects with grants than with
contracts; thus, although USAID contracts are higher in funding, USAID
democracy funding is fairly evenly split between contracts and grants.
In fiscal year 2008, about 53 percent of USAID democracy funding was
implemented through contracts and 47 percent was implemented through
grants. Table 3 shows USAID's average global funding for democracy
contracts and grants in fiscal year 2008.
Table 3: Global USAID Democracy Funding and Projects by Implementing
Mechanism, Fiscal Year 2008:
Average funding per project:
Grants: $846,526;
Contracts: $2,012,114.
Percentage of total funding:
Grants: 47 percent;
Contracts: 53 percent.
Total number of projects:
Grants: 692;
Contracts: 326.
Source: GAO analysis of USAID data.
Note: This analysis is based on USAID data for democracy assistance in
all countries, including Iraq and Afghanistan, for fiscal year 2008; if
funding for democracy projects in Iraq and Afghanistan is excluded, the
distribution of USAID democracy funds by funding mechanism changes to
52 percent of funds distributed for grants and 47 percent for
contracts. In 2006 and 2007, USAID democracy funding, excluding
projects in Iraq and Afghanistan, was likewise more heavily
concentrated toward grants, with 62 percent of funds distributed for
grants and 38 percent for contracts in 2006 and 65 percent distributed
for grants and 35 percent for contracts in 2007. USAID officials noted
that democracy projects in Iraq and Afghanistan are more reliant on
contracts because of the nature of the projects involved. This analysis
does not cover all USAID democracy projects over this period, as it
excludes some cross-cutting projects relating to more than one
objective.
[End of table]
State DRL and NED Funded Democracy Assistance Activities in Select
Countries:
State DRL funded democracy programs in more than 30 countries in a
variety of program areas in fiscal year 2008,[Footnote 28] spending 57
percent of its funds in Iraq and 28 percent in China, Cuba, Iran, and
North Korea. Funds managed by State DRL totaled $157 million in fiscal
year 2008, $75 million of which was allocated through a supplemental
appropriation for democracy programs in Iraq. Only a small portion of
State DRL-managed funding in that year--$13 million of $157 million--
was discretionary; most of the funding was congressionally directed for
specific countries or issues.[Footnote 29] In planning resource
allocations as well as solicitations for statements of interest and
requests for proposals from NGOs, State DRL staff members consult with
USAID and State regional bureaus, and review country mission strategic
plans and operational plans, according to a State DRL official.
Proposals are reviewed by a 7-person panel, which includes
representatives from State DRL, USAID, and State regional bureaus.
[Footnote 30] According to a State DRL official, the bureau does not
prepare country strategies for its democracy grant program because
funding levels are relatively small for most countries and fluctuate
from year to year.
NED funded democracy programs in more than 90 countries in fiscal year
2008, spending 28 percent of its funds on programs in China, Iraq,
Russia, Burma, and Pakistan. Unlike USAID and State DRL, NED allocates
democracy funds relatively evenly across many countries, with average
per-country funding of almost $1 million in fiscal year 2008.[Footnote
31] In fiscal year 2008, NED's funding allocation for democracy
programs totaled $118 million. NED makes programming decisions on
specific projects in the context of its current 5-year strategic plan,
published in 2007, and an internal annual planning document. For each
region of the world, the annual planning document identifies regional
priorities and critical sectors--such as human rights and freedom of
information--in which to target assistance. According to a NED
official, NED solicits proposals from NGOs every quarter. After grant
proposals are received, NED conducts an internal review and the
proposals that are selected are presented to the NED board of directors
for approval.[Footnote 32]
Figure 6 shows the countries where State DRL and NED, respectively,
allocated the largest amounts for democracy programs in fiscal year
2008.
Figure 6: Countries with the Largest Percentage of Funding from State
DRL and NED, Fiscal Year 2008 (Dollars in millions):
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 pie-charts]
Countries with Highest DRL Funding:
Iraq, $75: 57%;
China, $15: 11%;
Cuba, $12: 9%;
Iran, $8: 6%;
North Korea, $3: 2%;
All other countries, $19: 15%.
Countries with Highest NED Funding:
Iraq, $6: 7%;
China, $6: 6%;
Russia, $6: 6%;
Burma, $5: 5%;
Pakistan, $3; 4%;
All other countries, $66: 72%.
Source: GAO analysis of State/DRL, and NED data.
Note: This analysis includes all funding directly allocated to programs
in individual countries and excludes funding allocated to regional or
cross-cutting programs that operate in more than one country.
[End of figure]
USAID and State DRL Coordinate to Help Ensure Complementary Programs
but Often Are Not Aware of NED Projects:
To help ensure complementary programming and avoid duplication in their
respective democracy assistance programs, State DRL invites USAID
missions to review State DRL proposals for democracy assistance
projects. In addition, State DRL officials sometimes participate in
USAID missions' planning for democracy assistance projects. However,
USAID and State DRL officials are often not aware of NED democracy
assistance projects, and although NED is not required to report on all
of its democracy assistance projects, State DRL officials and USAID
mission officials said that information on all NED's active projects
would be useful in ensuring coordinated assistance.[Footnote 33] USAID
officials participate in embassy working groups or committees that
review democracy assistance projects, among others, to ensure that
projects are complementary.
USAID Missions and State DRL Take Steps to Coordinate Democracy
Assistance Programming:
State DRL--which manages its democracy grant program centrally, without
embassy-based staff--solicits feedback from USAID missions in both the
development of State DRL's solicitations for democracy programs and the
resulting project proposals from NGOs. As part of State DRL's formal
process for evaluating democracy assistance project proposals, USAID
and State regional bureau representatives participate in State DRL's
project review panels and vote on proposals, conveying feedback from
USAID country missions and embassies as to whether project proposals
complement or duplicate ongoing democracy assistance efforts of USAID
and other State entities. USAID officials at the 10 missions we
contacted generally agreed that this process helps to ensure
complementary programming between State DRL and USAID. In just one
instance, a USAID mission official remarked that a review panel had
approved a State DRL proposal for civil society training that could
duplicate an existing USAID project. According to a State DRL official,
the review panels take into account the missions' and embassies'
feedback but may vote to approve a project on the basis of other
factors.
In addition, State DRL officials are involved in some aspects of USAID
missions' democracy assistance planning. State DRL officials who manage
the bureau's democracy grants participate with USAID's Office of
Democracy and Governance in providing input on democracy funding levels
as a part of the budget formulation process and have the opportunity to
review and comment on all country operational plans, according to State
officials. State officials also noted that State DRL as a bureau is
involved in many strategic discussions about democracy assistance that
is provided through bilateral programs; however, State DRL officers
generally are not involved in USAID missions' planning for democracy
assistance projects. According to State DRL officials responsible for
grants in our 10 sample countries, increased integration into USAID's
planning process would better inform State DRL programming decisions
and ensure better coordination between State and USAID. State DRL
officials noted that this would also increase the opportunity for State
DRL to share its expertise as the bureau responsible for U.S. human
rights and democracy policy. However, State DRL and USAID officials
commented that increasing the level of coordination between State DRL's
staff and USAID missions in USAID's planning process could be
challenging, because State DRL staff typically have resources to travel
to countries only once per year as part of their grant oversight
duties. According to USAID officials, USAID selects its projects based
on multiyear democracy assistance strategies developed at country-based
missions; the development of individual USAID democracy assistance
projects and selection of implementing partners also generally takes
place at the missions. USAID mission officials also noted that their
review process for selecting implementing partners, which takes place
in the field, generally lasts 10 to 15 days. In addition, a State/F
official observed that for most countries, State DRL's level of funding
for its grant program would likely be too small to justify the
additional staff time necessary for increasing their involvement in
USAID's mission-based planning processes.[Footnote 34]
Despite the challenges related to State DRL involvement in USAID
planning, we found that USAID missions included State DRL staff in
joint planning activities for 2 of our 10 sample countries. For
example, the USAID mission in Russia invited a State DRL official to
participate in an interagency visit to the country in 2008 to review
current U.S. democracy assistance efforts and consider areas for future
programming. The State DRL official involved in the visit noted that
this effort helped her identify potential areas where State DRL could
target its assistance to complement USAID's larger, longer-term
democracy program. In China--the only country in our sample where State
DRL funds a larger portfolio of democracy projects than does USAID--a
State DRL official participated in vetting proposals for a USAID Rule
of Law project in China that began in 2006. State DRL official did not
participate in planning the solicitation for the proposals,[Footnote
35] and USAID did not invite State DRL to participate in its planning
or proposal vetting for subsequent Rule of Law projects in China. More
recently, State DRL and USAID staff met with embassy staff in Beijing
to collaborate on their respective democracy assistance programs.
However, according to a State DRL official, it is not clear what role
State DRL will have in USAID's future strategic planning process for
assistance in China or in reviewing USAID's future democracy project
proposals there.
The development of joint State-USAID country assistance strategies
(CAS), which State/F is piloting as part of its foreign aid reform
efforts, is expected to improve coordination of State and USAID foreign
assistance, according to State/F officials. However, as we reported in
April 2009, the CAS, unlike USAID's country strategies, contains only
high-level information, which could limit its impact on interagency
collaboration.[Footnote 36] State piloted this new strategic planning
process in 10 countries in fiscal year 2008 and was reviewing the
results of the pilot as of August 2009.[Footnote 37] Consequently,
according to State and USAID officials, it is not yet clear what form
the new process will take; it also is not clear whether or how the
process may affect interagency coordination of democracy assistance
efforts.[Footnote 38]
USAID and State DRL Are Often Not Aware of NED Projects:
USAID and State DRL officials responsible for managing democracy
assistance in our 10 sample countries have often lacked basic
information about NED's democracy projects, which they believe would be
useful in ensuring coordinated assistance. No mechanism currently
exists for the routine sharing of information on NED's core-funded
projects outside the Europe and Eurasia region. In 4 of our 10 sample
countries, USAID mission officials told us that they were not aware of
NED-supported activities in the country, despite the presence of
several active NED projects. Several USAID mission officials stated
that more knowledge of NED's projects would be useful for ensuring that
U.S.-supported assistance is well coordinated. State DRL officials
responsible for planning and managing democracy grants in 7 of the 10
sample countries also told us that they were not aware of NED's current
projects, and State DRL officials responsible for managing projects in
5 of these 7 countries said that receiving timely information on NED's
projects would improve coordination and help reduce the possibility of
duplicative programming. In particular, State DRL officials stated that
knowledge of NED's activities in a given country would help inform
their own planning decisions regarding which projects to support.
State has access to NED's annual report to Congress on its core grant
activities. However, State DRL officials noted that they cannot rely on
this report for complete information about NED's activities, because
the report may exclude many projects that go into effect after the
report is published. Although NED is under no obligation to report to
State on the projects it funds with its core U.S. appropriation, NED
also regularly provides information on its core-funded and non-core-
funded projects to State in some instances. For example, in addition to
annually reporting, NED provides quarterly updates on both proposed and
active projects in former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe countries to
State's Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and
Eurasia (EUR/ACE).[Footnote 39] EUR/ACE officials stated that they
circulate information on NED's proposed and active projects to the
relevant USAID missions and U.S. embassies, as well as to Washington
counterparts in DRL and regional State and USAID bureaus, to keep them
informed and that they also solicit any feedback that might be useful
to NED on an advisory basis only. EUR/ACE officials noted that because
EUR/ACE exists expressly to coordinate all foreign assistance in its
geographic regions, staff resources are available to collect and
disseminate this information; according to these officials, other
geographic State bureaus may not have access to such resources.
NED officials told us that, although there is no mechanism for routine
information sharing on NED projects, NED provides information to State
and USAID when asked. NED officials also said that the organization
does not oppose sharing with State or USAID information on projects
that the NED board has approved.[Footnote 40] The officials stated that
NED would be willing to provide project information routinely if State
or USAID deemed it useful. However, NED and State officials also
indicated that any attempt to increase NED's sharing of information
with State DRL should be designed to minimize additional administrative
burden and avoid straining State DRL's available staff resources.
USAID and Embassy Officials Collaborate Regularly:
USAID mission and embassy officials involved in democracy assistance in
our 10 sample countries collaborate regularly, typically through
working groups or committees at posts. For example, in Indonesia, an
anticorruption working group that includes USAID, Department of
Justice, and State officials from the embassy's political and economic
sections meets monthly at the embassy. According to USAID officials,
this group has discussed various anticorruption-related programs to
ensure that their efforts are complementary. The embassy in Indonesia
also convenes a parliamentary working group, a counterterrorism and law
enforcement working group, and an ad hoc working group on elections
involving many of the same representatives. In addition, during our
review of 10 sample countries, USAID officials in Russia told us of a
working group that meets at the embassy to coordinate all U.S. foreign
assistance, including democracy assistance. Also, according to State
officials, the embassies in Lebanon and Kosovo have each established a
staff position devoted to coordinating U.S. assistance.[Footnote 41]
The State officials noted that these staff have facilitated interagency
coordination among the various U.S. programs involved in democracy
assistance in these countries.
In addition to participating in embassy-based interagency working
groups and committees, mission officials also reported regularly
collaborating, both informally and formally, with State officials at
posts such as political and public affairs officers. In particular, in
our survey of 31 USAID mission officials responsible for managing
democracy assistance projects, 25 officials identified collaboration
with the embassy political section, 21 officials identified
collaboration with the embassy public affairs section, and 10 officials
identified collaboration with the embassy law enforcement section as
being at least somewhat important to their current projects. Our survey
respondents also showed that State officials often reviewed USAID
democracy project proposals. Specifically, 13 respondents identified
the embassy political section as being somewhat, moderately, or very
involved in reviewing USAID's democracy project proposals. Six
respondents identified the embassy public affairs section, and two
respondents identified the embassy law enforcement section, as being at
least somewhat involved in reviewing the proposals.
USAID Uses Standard and Custom Indicators to Assess and Report
Democracy Assistance Results and Provides Some Independent Evaluations
of Impacts:
USAID uses standard indicators to report quantitative information on
immediate results of its democracy assistance programs and develops
additional custom indicators to assess specific projects. In addition,
USAID sometimes commissions longer-term independent evaluations of
program impact. USAID reported taking several actions to improve its
evaluation capacity in response to the 2008 National Research Council
study that the agency commissioned.
USAID Uses Standard and Custom Indicators to Assess Immediate Results
of Democracy Assistance:
USAID uses standard indicators to assess and report the outputs--that
is, numbers of activities and immediate results--of its democracy
assistance programs.[Footnote 42] State/F developed the standard
indicators with input from subject matter experts in DRL and USAID's
Office of Democracy and Governance. The indicators, which are linked to
State/F's program objectives, areas, and elements, are intended to
facilitate the aggregating and reporting of quantitative information
common to foreign assistance programs across countries.[Footnote 43]
For the GJD program areas, there are 96 element-level standard
indicators (see table 4 for examples). USAID uses the standard
indicators in performance reports that summarize project activities,
achievements, and difficulties encountered.[Footnote 44]
Table 4: Example of GJD Element-Level Standard Indicators:
Program area: Rule of Law and Human Rights;
Program element:
* Constitutions, Laws and Human Rights;
Indicator:
* Number of U.S. government-supported public sessions held regarding
proposed changes to the country's legal framework.
Program area: Rule of Law and Human Rights;
Program element: * Judicial Independence;
Indicator:
* Number of judges trained with U.S. government assistance.
Program area: Good Governance;
Program element:
* Legislative Function and Process;
Indicator:
* Number of public forums resulting from U.S. government assistance in
which national legislators and members of the public interact.
Program area: Good Governance;
Program element:
* Anti-corruption Reforms;
Indicator:
* Number of government officials receiving U.S. government-supported
anti-corruption training.
Program area: Political Competition and Consensus Building;
Program element:
* Consensus Building Processes;
Indicator:
* Number of groups trained in conflict mediation/resolution skills with
U.S. government assistance.
Program area: Political Competition and Consensus Building;
Program element:
* Elections and Political Processes;
Indicator:
* Number of election officials trained with U.S. government assistance.
Program area: Civil Society;
Program element:
* Strengthen Democratic Civic Participation;
Indicator:
* Number of people who have completed U.S. government-assisted civic
education programs.
Program area: Civil Society;
Program element:
* Media Freedom and Freedom of Information;
Indicator:
* Number of journalists trained with U.S. government assistance.
Source: Department of State, Office of the U.S. Director of Foreign
Assistance.
[End of table]
According to USAID officials, in addition to using these standard
indicators to measure program outputs, USAID uses custom indicators for
virtually every project to measure program outputs, outcomes, and
impacts[Footnote 45] that are not captured by the standard indicators.
[Footnote 46] Some USAID officials we spoke with informed us that they
use project-specific custom indicators that are more outcome focused
than the standard indicators. For example, USAID's Jordan mission uses
customized project indicators associated with each GJD program area;
for the program area Good Governance, one such indicator is "improved
capacity of the legislative branch and elected local bodies to
undertake their stated functions." Of the USAID technical officers we
surveyed, more than two-thirds (22 of 31) said that custom indicators
were very useful for monitoring and evaluating projects and assessing
impact. USAID management officials also noted the importance of custom
indicators in assessing the impact of democracy assistance projects.
USAID Conducts Some Independent Evaluations of Longer-Term Democracy
Assistance Impact:
To complement the data collected with the standard and custom
indicators, USAID also commissions some independent evaluations of the
longer-term impact of its democracy assistance, although such
evaluations are relatively infrequent.[Footnote 47] State/F's and
USAID's March 2009 joint guidelines for evaluating foreign assistance
state that mission staff may decide whether and when to commission
evaluations, based on management needs among other considerations.
Evaluations of USAID assistance efforts have decreased in frequency
since the mid-1990s. In 1995, USAID eliminated a requirement that every
major foreign assistance project undergo midterm and final evaluations;
according to USAID officials, the requirement was eliminated because
the evaluation requirement of every project was seen as too resource
intensive relative to the value added. As a result of this change in
policy, the number of evaluations across all areas of development
assistance dropped from approximately 340 in 1995 to about 130 in 1999,
according to a 2001 review.[Footnote 48]
Our analysis of documentation from the 10 sample countries shows 7
independent evaluations commissioned in fiscal years 2006 through 2008.
[Footnote 49] Some USAID mission officials we met with noted that they
conducted few independent evaluations of democracy assistance because
of the resources involved in the undertaking and the difficulty of
measuring impact in the area of democracy assistance.[Footnote 50] For
example, one technical officer responded on our survey that "behavior
change is difficult to measure and change in democracy is not seen
overnight. It is a long process difficult to measure." In addition,
senior USAID officials we spoke to in the three countries we visited
stated that it is difficult to demonstrate causality between projects
and improvements in a country's democratic status. On the other hand,
USAID mission officials in all of our 10 sample countries stated that
evaluations are useful to monitoring, evaluating, and identifying
lessons learned. In addition, in our survey six of eight technical
officers who responded on the usefulness of independent evaluations
responded that they are either very or moderately useful to monitoring
and evaluation.
USAID officials at headquarters as well as at several missions we
contacted told us that because of the infrequency of independent
evaluations, USAID missions use, as a proxy for such evaluations,
internal program assessments of a country's need for democracy
programming (called sector and subsector assessments). More than half
of the USAID technical officers we surveyed said that they found these
assessments moderately or very useful in monitoring and evaluating
their current projects.[Footnote 51] The three overall sectorwide
assessments that we reviewed--for Kosovo, Indonesia, and the Democratic
Republic of the Congo--follow the assessment structure recommended in
USAID guidance, which emphasizes strategic recommendations rather than
program performance results. In line with that guidance, these
assessments provide general, high-level comments on program results,
rather than evaluative information, and do not include either evidence
supporting the results statements or references to evaluation
documents.[Footnote 52] We also examined 10 subsector assessments (not
subject to the sector assessment guidance). Three of the 10 included
significant information about the results of specific programs, while
others included no reference or only a brief reference to the results
or outcomes of specific USAID democracy projects.
USAID Reported Preliminary Steps to Improve Evaluation Capacity:
Recognizing the need for evaluations of its democracy assistance
programs' impacts, in 2008 USAID commissioned a review of its program
evaluation practices and problems by the National Research Council.
According to the report's findings:[Footnote 53]
* USAID has lost much capacity to assess the impact and effectiveness
of its programs.
* The number of evaluations undertaken by USAID has declined.
* The evaluations undertaken generally focus on implementation and
management concerns and have not collected the data needed for sound
"impact" evaluations.
* Most current evaluations do not provide compelling evidence of the
impacts of the programs. Most evaluations usually do not collect data
that are critical to making the most accurate and credible
determination of project impacts.
* Most evaluations tend to be informative and serve varied purposes for
project managers.
The National Research Council report outlines techniques for improving
the monitoring and evaluation of projects, developing methodologies for
retrospective case studies, and other means of collecting and analyzing
data that will allow USAID to more reliably gauge impact and improve
strategic planning and programming decisions. Following the release of
the report, the USAID Office of Democracy and Governance formed an
internal initiative to formulate how to implement the report's
recommendations. According to USAID data provided to GAO, as of June
2009, the office reports taking several actions in response to these
recommendations.[Footnote 54] Table 5 shows the National Research
Council's recommendations and USAID's reported actions.
Table 5: National Research Council Recommendations and USAID Reported
Actions:
National Research Council recommendation: Undertake a pilot program of
impact evaluations designed to demonstrate whether such evaluations can
help USAID determine the effects of its Office of Democracy and
Governance projects on targeted policy-relevant outcomes;
USAID reported actions: Initiated a pilot impact evaluation program to
conduct a series of multicountry, subsectoral impact evaluations
covering the most important kinds of democracy programs. Designed and
delivered new training modules on impact evaluations for experienced
USAID democracy officers, new Development Leadership Initiative
recruits, implementing partners, and USAID staff and partners in the
field. By the end of June 2009, over 200 were trained. Also provided in-
country assistance to six USAID missions on design of potential impact
evaluations to include in scope of work of new projects. In addition,
USAID noted that it now routinely trains democracy officers in how to
conduct impact evaluations, and has hired experts in evaluation
methodologies to improve overall institutional capacity.
National Research Council recommendation: Develop more transparent,
objective, and widely accepted indicators of changes in democratic
behavior and institutions at the sectoral level (i.e., rule of law,
civil society, etc.);
USAID reported actions: Addressed deficiencies in sector-level
indicators of democracy. For example, conducted analysis of indicator
"gaps" and possible means for filling those gaps. Draft report on this
analysis forthcoming.
National Research Council recommendation: Use more diverse and
theoretically structured clusters of case studies of democratization
and democracy assistance to develop hypothesis to guide democracy
assistance planning in a diverse range of settings;
USAID reported actions: Launched other types of evaluations (besides
impact evaluations) and explored ways to better integrate academic
research with efforts of Office of Democracy and Governance to guide
democracy assistance planning. For example, in May 2009, awarded a
grant of $685,000 to the University of Pittsburgh to improve the USAID
strategic framework for political party assistance and to update
assessment and evaluation methodologies for political party assistance.
National Research Council recommendation: Rebuild USAID's institutional
mechanisms for absorbing and disseminating the results of its work and
evaluations, as well as its own research and the research of others, on
processes of democratization and democracy assistance;
USAID reported actions: Took actions to promote institutional and
administrative changes for the Office of Democracy and Governance and
USAID in terms of monitoring and evaluation. For example, launched a
cross-sector office evaluation group to formulate and manage the
Enhancing Democracy and Governance Evaluations initiative that
coordinates the implementation of the National Research Council's
recommendations.
Source: National Research Council and USAID.
[End of table]
Conclusion:
Democracy promotion is one of five strategic objectives for U.S.
foreign assistance. Given the need to maximize available resources to
pursue this important objective, coordination among the entities
providing democracy assistance is essential to ensure that these
efforts are complementary and not duplicative. USAID and State DRL have
processes in place to facilitate coordination of their programs--for
example, State and USAID officials in the field review State DRL
project proposals to minimize duplication, and USAID officials
regularly participate in interagency meetings with embassy officials to
help ensure that their agencies' democracy-related projects are
complementary. However, lacking access to current information about
NED's activities, State and USAID officials are constrained in their
efforts to fully coordinate their activities with NED's in the many
countries where they and NED each provide democracy assistance.
Although NED is not required to report to State on all of its
activities, NED regularly shares useful information with State
regarding democracy projects in the former Soviet Union and Eastern
Europe, and NED indicated its willingness to also routinely provide
information on its projects in other countries.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To enhance coordination of U.S.-funded democracy assistance efforts,
and in support of the Department of State's first Quadrennial Diplomacy
and Development Review, we recommend that the Secretary of State and
the USAID Administrator, while recognizing NED's status as a private
nonprofit organization, work jointly with NED to establish a mechanism
to routinely collect information about NED's current projects in
countries where NED and State or USAID provide democracy assistance.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
USAID, State, and NED provided written comments regarding a draft of
this report, which are reprinted in appendixes V, VI, and VII,
respectively. State also provided technical comments separately, which
we incorporated as appropriate.
In its written comments, USAID agreed with our recommendation, noting
that its country missions and Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and
Humanitarian Assistance would benefit from information on current NED
projects. USAID also noted that the current coordination mechanism in
State's Europe and Eurasia Bureau appears to be effective and may serve
as a model for worldwide efforts. In our report, we highlight the
important role of that bureau's Office of the Coordinator of U.S.
Assistance to Europe and Eurasia, which exists expressly to coordinate
all foreign assistance in its geographic regions, but note that other
geographic State bureaus may not have access to the resources available
to this office. USAID's written comments suggested several additions to
our report's description of the agency's planning and evaluation
processes; we incorporated these suggestions as appropriate.
State also concurred with our recommendation. State responded that
improved coordination with NED could enhance the effectiveness of U.S.
democracy assistance and agreed to work with USAID and NED to assess
how to develop a cost-effective and sustainable process for doing so.
State also noted that coordination and information sharing have
improved in recent years as a result of foreign assistance reform
efforts and that State DRL includes relevant U.S. agencies in its
planning and program solicitation process.
NED concurred with our recommendation as well, noting that sharing
information about its programs with other providers of democracy
assistance helps avoid duplication of effort and also helps providers
develop their program-related strategies. NED stated that a mechanism
for collecting information on its current projects should be designed
to minimize additional administrative burden and avoid straining staff
resources on all sides. In addition, NED highlighted the monitoring and
evaluation efforts it undertakes and referred to its March 2006 report
to Congress, Evaluating Democracy Promotion Programs, which we also
cite in our report's discussion of challenges associated with assessing
the impact of democracy assistance.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees, the Secretary of State, the Acting Administrator of USAID,
and other interested parties. In addition, this report is available on
GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. If you or your
staffs have any questions about this report, please contact David
Gootnick at (202) 512-3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Individuals who made key contributions to
this report are listed in appendix VIII.
Signed by:
David Gootnick:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives were to (1) describe democracy assistance funding
provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and
the Department of State's Bureau of Democracy, Labor and Human Rights
(State DRL), and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in fiscal
year 2008; (2) examine USAID, State DRL, and NED efforts to coordinate
their democracy assistance activities to ensure complementary
programming; and (3) describe USAID efforts to assess results and
evaluate the impact of its democracy assistance activities. To
accomplish our objectives, we analyzed funding, planning, and
programmatic documents describing U.S. democracy assistance activities
provided by USAID, State DRL, and NED in fiscal years 2006 through
2008. We conducted audit work in Washington, D.C., and in three
countries: Indonesia, Jordan, and Russia. We also collected information
on democracy programs in the following seven additional countries:
China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Haiti, Kosovo, Lebanon,
Nicaragua, and Pakistan. In total, we collected detailed information on
U.S. democracy programs in 10 countries.
We selected these 10 countries to reflect geographic diversity and
provide examples of countries with significant levels of U.S. funding
for the strategic objective Governing Justly and Democratically (GJD)
and that have multiple U.S. or U.S.-funded entities providing democracy
assistance, such as USAID, State DRL, and NED. However, this sample of
10 countries is not intended to be representative of all countries
receiving U.S. democracy assistance. Moreover, we did not include Iraq
and Afghanistan in our sample, despite the very large levels of U.S.
democracy assistance funding provided there, because of the unique
circumstances in these two countries.
In the three countries we visited, we met with USAID officials
responsible for democracy assistance programs, selected non-
governmental organizations receiving USAID, State, and NED grants or
contracts to provide democracy assistance, and country government
officials in Indonesia and Jordan. For all 10 countries in our sample,
we interviewed the USAID Democracy and Governance directors at the
USAID missions (either in person or by telephone) and administered a
survey to 31 USAID technical officers with responsibility for managing
active democracy and governance grants in these countries. We also
interviewed State DRL policy and program officers responsible for
managing the bureau's democracy grants in the 10 countries.
To obtain the views of USAID mission officials in our 10 sample
countries regarding interagency coordination and project monitoring and
evaluation, we conducted an e-mail survey of all 35 USAID technical
officers with responsibility for managing active democracy and
governance grants in these countries, receiving 31 responses, from
April to June 2009 (a response rate of 89 percent). Our survey included
questions on collaboration with other U.S. government agencies, overlap
of USAID programs with those of other agencies, cooperation with
implementing partners, site visit activities, and monitoring and
evaluation practices. We pretested our survey with seven technical
officers in Indonesia, Jordan, and Russia. In collecting and analyzing
the survey data, we took steps to minimize errors that might occur
during these stages.
To describe the funding levels for U.S. democracy assistance for each
entity involved in these activities, we collected funding allocation
data. From State/F we collected and analyzed data on GJD funding
allocations to each operating unit from fiscal years 2006 through 2008,
which was generated using the FACTS Info database. Because State/F data
systems do not include GJD funding by implementing agency, State/F and
USAID compiled data at our request on GJD funding allocated to USAID
for each country operating unit for fiscal years 2006 through 2008.
[Footnote 55] We also obtained funding allocation data by country for
fiscal years 2006 through 2008 directly from State DRL and NED. We also
collected funding data on all democracy-related Millennium Challenge
Corporation (MCC) threshold grants directly from MCC and available
funding information on democracy-related assistance provided by State's
Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and the Bureau of
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (State INL).
[Footnote 56]
To obtain information on active democracy programs in our 10 sample
countries, we contacted the USAID mission in each country to obtain a
list of all projects active during January 2009 and the corresponding
funding obligations for each project. In addition, we contacted State
DRL and NED to obtain lists and respective funding levels for all
active projects in those 10 countries. To compare these projects with
varying duration and funding levels, we annualized the funding of each
project and portfolio. Specifically, we based the annualized funding of
active projects on the average monthly cost of each project (total
project funding divided by the length of the project in months),
multiplied by 12; and we summed the annualized funding for each project
to obtain the annual value of the USAID, State DRL, and NED portfolios.
To assess the reliability of the global funding information on U.S.
government democracy assistance from the F database, we checked that
the congressionally appropriated amount for GJD in fiscal years 2006
through 2008 matched the amounts provided to us by State/F. To assess
the reliability of the country-level data provided by State/F on GJD
allocations to USAID at country missions in fiscal years 2006-2008, we
compared these data to the information USAID missions provided to us
directly for our 10 sample countries. We also discussed with State/F
how they conducted this data call and data reliability issues.
Regarding the State DRL data we use in this report, State DRL officials
noted that the data provided on funding levels for each country are
based on individual grant awards. Correspondingly, to verify both the
country-level and project-level data, we compared State DRL's data to
information in copies of grant agreements of all active State DRL
projects in the three countries we visited (Jordan, Russia, and
Indonesia). To verify the reliability of the USAID data on individual
active democracy programs we received from USAID missions for our 10
sample countries, we compared the dollar totals of projects contained
in the lists they provided us against data on a set of 47 projects
detailed by the 31 technical officers we surveyed. To assess the
reliability of the NED project-level data for the 10 sample countries,
we compared them to project-level data contained on the NED Web site.
We found that all data used in this report are sufficiently reliable to
present the general levels of democracy funding globally and in
individual countries and to present the relative size of project
portfolios between USAID, State DRL, and NED.
To assess coordination between USAID, State DRL, and NED, we
interviewed responsible officials from these three entities and
selected grantees and contractors during our field work in Indonesia,
Jordan, and Russia to obtain their views on the coordination mechanisms
to ensure complementary programming and avoid duplication. For the
broader sample of 10 countries, including the 3 countries we visited,
we reviewed project descriptions for all active democracy grants and
contracts funded by USAID, State DRL, and NED. We also included
questions on interagency coordination and examples of duplication in
our survey of USAID technical officers as well as interviews of USAID
mission and State DRL officials.
In assessing U.S. reporting and evaluation efforts, we focused our
analysis on USAID efforts and projects since they typically represented
the majority of U.S.-funded assistance. We interviewed agency and
organization officials, as well as selected implementing partners
during our field work in Indonesia, Jordan, and Russia to obtain their
views on reporting and evaluation efforts. In our survey of technical
officers, we included questions on reporting and evaluation practices.
We reviewed selected quarterly and final performance reports of USAID-
funded democracy projects in the 10 countries, which are required of
USAID's implementing partners. We also reviewed democracy and
governance assessments for the 10 countries, which are conducted as
part of USAID missions' strategy development and project planning
efforts. We also discussed the use of performance indicators with
USAID, including standard indicators required by State and custom
project-specific indicators developed by USAID missions and their
implementing partners. In addition, we reviewed USAID assessments to
determine the extent to which these assessments provide program
results. Moreover, we reviewed independent evaluations from our 10
sample countries completed in fiscal years 2006 through 2008. We did
not review State DRL and NED practices for assessing results and
evaluating impact, because their programs are small and short term
relative to USAID's and because they generally do not conduct
independent evaluations of their activities' impact. According to State
DRL officials, State DRL recommends that its grantees conduct
independent external evaluations as part of individual grant awards but
has not undertaken standard independent evaluations of democracy
assistance at the country or thematic level. NED commissions periodic
independent evaluations of clusters of programs but does not evaluate
every grant. In addition, we reviewed recent studies that discuss the
challenges associated with measuring impact of democracy assistance. In
particular, we complemented our findings from interviews and document
reviews with findings from the National Research Council study of USAID
evaluation capacity.[Footnote 57] We did not assess the quality or
comprehensiveness of this study; we also did not assess USAID's actions
since June 2009 in implementing recommendations from this study,
because these actions are preliminary.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to September
2009 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Country Funding Levels and Freedom House Ratings:
Table 6 shows the USAID, State DRL, and NED democracy funding allocated
to each country from fiscal years 2006 through 2008. This table
demonstrates that USAID democracy funding is substantially larger than
State DRL and NED funding in most countries. Not including Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan, USAID has the majority of funding in 93
percent of countries where USAID has an active portfolio. However,
State DRL or NED provides democracy assistance in over 20 countries
where USAID funding is not provided. In addition, State DRL democracy
funding tends to be larger in countries with lower USAID funding, such
as in China and Iran, or where USAID funding for democracy assistance
is not provided, such as North Korea or Syria, consistent with State
DRL's focus on filling in the gaps in USAID democracy funding.
Table 6: USAID, State DRL, and NED Funding by Country for Fiscal Years
2006-2008 (Dollars in thousands):
Country: Iraq;
USAID: Not available;
State DRL: $352,353;
NED: $13,179;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): Not available;
USAID as percent of total: Not available;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Pakistan;
USAID: Not available;
State DRL: $8,011;
NED: $9,603;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): Not available;
USAID as percent of total: Not available;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Afghanistan;
USAID: Not available;
State DRL: $2,200;
NED: $5,534;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): Not available;
USAID as percent of total: Not available;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Sudan;
USAID: $165,617;
State DRL: $2,563;
NED: $3,046;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $171,226;
USAID as percent of total: 97;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Egypt;
USAID: $152,100;
State DRL: $859;
NED: $3,185;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $156,144;
USAID as percent of total: 97;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Russia;
USAID: $84,174;
State DRL: $2,800;
NED: $13,005;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $99,979;
USAID as percent of total: 84;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Indonesia;
USAID: $75,755;
State DRL: $2,262;
NED: $4,456;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $82,473;
USAID as percent of total: 92;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Colombia;
USAID: $72,752;
State DRL: $500;
NED: $3,385;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $76,637;
USAID as percent of total: 95;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: West Bank and Gaza;
USAID: $68,147;
State DRL: $1,063;
NED: $3,898;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $73,108;
USAID as percent of total: 93;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Kosovo;
USAID: $67,414;
State DRL: $1,351;
NED: $1,084;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $69,848;
USAID as percent of total: 97;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Liberia;
USAID: $66,950;
State DRL: $908;
NED: $2,884;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $70,742;
USAID as percent of total: 95;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Haiti;
USAID: $61,849;
State DRL: $1,146;
NED: $2,150;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $65,145;
USAID as percent of total: 95;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Ukraine;
USAID: $56,633;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $7,684;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $64,317;
USAID as percent of total: 88;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Mexico;
USAID: $52,348;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $2,830;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $55,178;
USAID as percent of total: 95;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Georgia;
USAID: $47,043;
State DRL: $650;
NED: $3,180;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $50,873;
USAID as percent of total: 92;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Cambodia;
USAID: $45,836;
State DRL: $1,210;
NED: $244;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $47,290;
USAID as percent of total: 97;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Jordan;
USAID: $43,700;
State DRL: $1,696;
NED: $3,569;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $48,965;
USAID as percent of total: 89;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo;
USAID: $42,406;
State DRL: $3,480;
NED: $4,864;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $50,750;
USAID as percent of total: 84;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Lebanon;
USAID: $39,913;
State DRL: $5,300;
NED: $2,722;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $47,935;
USAID as percent of total: 83;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Cuba;
USAID: $37,813;
State DRL: $23,667;
NED: $4,351;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $65,831;
USAID as percent of total: 57;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Serbia;
USAID: $37,023;
State DRL: $981;
NED: $2,133;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $40,137;
USAID as percent of total: 92;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Armenia;
USAID: $2,108;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $620;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $32,728;
USAID as percent of total: 98;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Bosnia and Herzegovina;
USAID: $31,120;
State DRL: $379;
NED: $1,905;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $33,404;
USAID as percent of total: 93;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Bolivia;
USAID: $30,187;
State DRL: $2,200;
NED: $1,429;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $33,816;
USAID as percent of total: 89;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Nigeria;
USAID: $30,050;
State DRL: $500;
NED: $4,539;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $35,089;
USAID as percent of total: 86;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Azerbaijan;
USAID: $26,898;
State DRL: $2,660;
NED: $3,247;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $32,805;
USAID as percent of total: 82;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Macedonia;
USAID: $26,551;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $637;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $27,188;
USAID as percent of total: 98;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Nicaragua;
USAID: $24,442;
State DRL: $2,073;
NED: $1,850;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $28,365;
USAID as percent of total: 86;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Philippines;
USAID: $24,371;
State DRL: $1,818;
NED: $1,997;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $28,186;
USAID as percent of total: 86;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Kyrgyz Republic;
USAID: $22,754;
State DRL: $500;
NED: $2,805;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $26,059;
USAID as percent of total: 87;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Guatemala;
USAID: $22,385;
State DRL: $1,434;
NED: $1,924;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $25,743;
USAID as percent of total: 87;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Iran;
USAID: $21,623;
State DRL: $15,039;
NED: $1,273;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $37,935;
USAID as percent of total: 57;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Bangladesh;
USAID: $20,344;
State DRL: $1,500;
NED: $486;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $22,330;
USAID as percent of total: 91;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Moldova;
USAID: $20,092;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $1,276;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $21,368;
USAID as percent of total: 94;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Zimbabwe;
USAID: $19,650;
State DRL: $2,545;
NED: $3,275;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $25,470;
USAID as percent of total: 77;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Kenya;
USAID: $18,492;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $2,959;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $21,451;
USAID as percent of total: 86;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Nepal;
USAID: $18,429;
State DRL: $3,020;
NED: $1,226;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $22,675;
USAID as percent of total: 81;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Belarus;
USAID: $17,979;
State DRL: $1,803;
NED: $7,770;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $27,551;
USAID as percent of total: 65;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Morocco;
USAID: $17,423;
State DRL: $340;
NED: $3,441;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $21,204;
USAID as percent of total: 82;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Angola;
USAID: $17,109;
State DRL: $1,194;
NED: $288;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $18,591;
USAID as percent of total: 92;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Timor-Leste;
USAID: $17,059;
State DRL: $532;
NED: $1,338;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $18,929;
USAID as percent of total: 90;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Kazakhstan;
USAID: $15,396;
State DRL: $1,015;
NED: $1,334;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $17,745;
USAID as percent of total: 87;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Albania;
USAID: $14,822;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $1,539;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $16,361;
USAID as percent of total: 91;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Ethiopia;
USAID: $13,648;
State DRL: $2,723;
NED: $1,655;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $18,026;
USAID as percent of total: 76;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Tajikistan;
USAID: $13,607;
State DRL: $300;
NED: $925;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $14,832;
USAID as percent of total: 92;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Bulgaria;
USAID: $12,516;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $270;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $12,786;
USAID as percent of total: 98;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Uzbekistan;
USAID: $12,254;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $570;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $12,824;
USAID as percent of total: 96;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Dominican Republic;
USAID: $12,100;
State DRL: 0;
NED: 0;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $12,100;
USAID as percent of total: 100;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: South Africa;
USAID: $11,035;
State DRL: 0;
NED: v229;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $11,264;
USAID as percent of total: 98;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Guinea;
USAID: $10,751;
State DRL: v1,130;
NED: $444;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $12,325;
USAID as percent of total: 87;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: El Salvador;
USAID: $10,570;
State DRL: $250;
NED: $781;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $11,601;
USAID as percent of total: 91;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Venezuela;
USAID: $10,420;
State DRL: $3,050;
NED: $2,951;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $16,420;
USAID as percent of total: 63;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Somalia;
USAID: $10,399;
State DRL: $2,000;
NED: $1,586;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $13,985;
USAID as percent of total: 74;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Paraguay;
USAID: v10,132;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $290;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $10,422;
USAID as percent of total: 97;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Peru;
USAID: $9,691;
State DRL: $637;
NED: $3,163;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $13,491;
USAID as percent of total: 72;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Honduras;
USAID: $9,267;
State DRL: 0;
NED: 0;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $9,267;
USAID as percent of total: 100;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Sri Lanka;
USAID: $9,043;
State DRL: $995;
NED: $1,956;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $11,994;
USAID as percent of total: 75;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Ecuador;
USAID: $8,379;
State DRL: $270;
NED: $2,763;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $11,412;
USAID as percent of total: 73;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: China;
USAID: $8,068;
State DRL: $52,601;
NED: $16,916;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $77,585;
USAID as percent of total: 10;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Burundi;
USAID: $7,587;
State DRL: $1,178;
NED: $213;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $8,978;
USAID as percent of total: 85;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Sierra Leone;
USAID: $7,388;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $1,099;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $8,487;
USAID as percent of total: 87;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Uganda;
USAID: $6,897;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $3,015;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $9,912;
USAID as percent of total: 70;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Croatia;
USAID: $6,672;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $350;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $7,022;
USAID as percent of total: 95;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Romania;
USAID: $6,000;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $648;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $6,648;
USAID as percent of total: 90;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Montenegro;
USAID: $5,875;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $1,094;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $6,969;
USAID as percent of total: 84;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Guyana;
USAID: $5,662;
State DRL: 0;
NED: 0;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $5,662;
USAID as percent of total: 100;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Turkmenistan;
USAID: $5,192;
State DRL: $500;
NED: $937;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $6,629;
USAID as percent of total: 78;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Vietnam;
USAID: $4,858;
State DRL: $1,800;
NED: $1,077;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $7,735;
USAID as percent of total: 63;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Mongolia;
USAID: $4,570;
State DRL: $100;
NED: $244;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $4,914;
USAID as percent of total: 93;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Mali;
USAID: $4,455;
State DRL: $178;
NED: $1,303;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $5,936;
USAID as percent of total: 75;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Jamaica;
USAID: $4,190;
State DRL: 0;
NED: 0;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $4,190;
USAID as percent of total: 100;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Yemen;
USAID: $4,010;
State DRL: $1,706;
NED: $2,608;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $8,323;
USAID as percent of total: 48;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Rwanda;
USAID: $3,839;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $94;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $3,933;
USAID as percent of total: 98;
Freedom House rating: Not Free.
Country: Tanzania;
USAID: $3,138;
State DRL: $450;
NED: $465;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $4,053;
USAID as percent of total: 77;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Mozambique;
USAID: $2,893;
State DRL: 0;
NED: 0;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,893;
USAID as percent of total: 100;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Burma;
USAID: $2,544;
State DRL: $2,159;
NED: $11,805;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $16,508;
USAID as percent of total: 15;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Djibouti;
USAID: $2,200;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $736;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,936;
USAID as percent of total: 75;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: India;
USAID: $2,043;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $30;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,073;
USAID as percent of total: 99;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Namibia;
USAID: $2,037;
State DRL: 0;
NED: 0;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,037;
USAID as percent of total: 100;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Chad;
USAID: $2,000;
State DRL: $2,331;
NED: $463;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $4,794;
USAID as percent of total: 42;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Thailand;
USAID: $1,980;
State DRL: $4,930;
NED: $1,493;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $8,404;
USAID as percent of total: 24;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Senegal;
USAID: $1,758;
State DRL: $600;
NED: $203;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,561;
USAID as percent of total: 69;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Ghana;
USAID: $1,629;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $820;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,449;
USAID as percent of total: 67;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Madagascar;
USAID: $1,592;
State DRL: 0;
NED: 0;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $1,592;
USAID as percent of total: 100;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Panama;
USAID: $1,320;
State DRL: 0;
NED: 0;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $1,320;
USAID as percent of total: 100;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Malawi;
USAID: $1,000;
State DRL: 0;
NED: 0;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $1,000;
USAID as percent of total: 100;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Zambia;
USAID: $750;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $246;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $996;
USAID as percent of total: 75;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Mauritania;
USAID: $500;
State DRL: 0;
NED: v1,329;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $1,829;
USAID as percent of total: 27;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Syria;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: $6,728;
NED: $749;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $7,477;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: North Korea;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: $4,169;
NED: $4,433;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $8,601;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Malaysia;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: $1,676;
NED: $1,997;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $3,673;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Saudi Arabia;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: $1,462;
NED: $820;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,282;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Argentina;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: $1,447;
NED: $1,450;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,897;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Cote d'Ivoire;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: $1,446;
NED: $2,655;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $4,101;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Laos;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: $700;
NED: 0;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $700;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Algeria;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: $560;
NED: $1,465;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $2,025;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Bahrain;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: $385;
NED: $214;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $599;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Turkey;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $5,479;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $5,479;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Tunisia;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $1,075;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $1,075;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Tibet;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $1,033;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $1,033;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Belize;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $835;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $835;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Somaliland;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $833;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $833;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Libya;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $561;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $561;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Guinea-Bissau;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $452;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $452;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Niger;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $332;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $332;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Togo;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $282;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $282;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Cameroon;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $254;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $254;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Congo;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $228;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $228;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Country: Kuwait;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $215;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $215;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: The Gambia;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $84;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $84;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Partly free.
Country: Poland;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $38;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $38;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Free.
Country: Equatorial Guinea;
USAID: 0;
State DRL: 0;
NED: $25;
Total (USAID, State DRL, and NED): $25;
USAID as percent of total: 0;
Freedom House rating: Not free.
Source: GAO analysis of data obtained by State/F from USAID country
missions, State DRL and NED data and Freedom House's annual survey of
the state of global freedom for 2009.
Notes: In response to our request for information on USAID's share of
GJD funding in each country, State/F and USAID compiled data from USAID
missions. We requested USAID funding data for all country missions;
however, with our concurrence, State/F excluded USAID funding data for
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan owing to the unique and complex
circumstances in those countries.
According to State/F data, GJD funds were allocated to 90 country
missions from fiscal year 2006 through 2008. In addition, data compiled
by State/F and USAID from USAID missions shows that USAID implements
democracy funds in 88 of these 90 countries. However, since State/F
data systems include GJD data by operating unit, democracy funding
allocated to individual countries by Washington, D.C.-based operating
units, such as State DRL, is not tracked by country. In identifying the
countries that receive either USAID and/or, State DRL funding, the
number of countries increases to 97.
Some other entities such as State INL, MCC, and MEPI also ultimately
program funds in a number of countries but these totals are not
included in this table.
[End of table]
In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, almost 30 percent of all GJD funds
were allocated for democracy activities in Iraq, which is the largest
portion of democracy assistance funds allocated to any country over
this period. A large and increasing portion of GJD funds are allocated
to democracy programs in Afghanistan as well. The percentage of GJD
funds allocated to Afghanistan rose from 6 percent in fiscal year 2006,
14 percent in fiscal year 2007, to 24 percent in fiscal year 2008. In
fact, in fiscal year 2008, there were more GJD funds allocated to
democracy programs in Afghanistan than any other country. Together, GJD
funds allocated to Iraq and Afghanistan comprised over 40 percent of
all GJD funds in fiscal years 2006 through 2008.
In fiscal years 2006 through 2008, total democracy assistance funding
increased by 29 percent. However, when excluding Iraq and Afghanistan,
which account for nearly half of all democracy spending, democracy
funding only rose 20 percent. In addition, not including funding for
Iraq and Afghanistan, the 10 countries with the highest GJD funding
from fiscal years 2006 to 2008 comprised almost half of the remainder
of GJD funding allocated to individual countries over that time period
(see table 7).
Table 7: Ten Highest GJD-funded Countries not including Iraq and
Afghanistan, Fiscal Years 2006-2008 (Dollars in thousands):
Country: Sudan;
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $208,373;
Funding as a percent of total: 7.91.
Country: Egypt;
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $154,800;
Funding as a percent of total: 5.87.
Country: Mexico;
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $119,680;
Funding as a percent of total: 4.54.
Country: Colombia;
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $118,928;
Funding as a percent of total: 4.51.
Country: Russia;
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $117,734;
Funding as a percent of total: 4.47.
Country: Kosovo;
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $92,747;
Funding as a percent of total: 3.52.
Country: Pakistan;
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $91,873;
Funding as a percent of total: 3.49.
Country: Liberia;
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $81,150;
Funding as a percent of total: 3.08.
Country: Indonesia;
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $79,663;
Funding as a percent of total: 3.02.
Country: West Bank and Gaza;
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $74,493;
Funding as a percent of total: 2.83.
Country: All other countries;
GJD FY 06-08 funding: $1,495,459;
Funding as a percent of total: 56.76.
Source: GAO analysis of State/F data.
Note: The GJD funding to country operating units is not broken out by
implementing entity and therefore includes funding implemented by USAID
as well as by other implementers programming GJD funds through country
operating units, such as State INL. In addition, these calculations do
not include GJD funds allocated to regional or functional operating
units.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Democracy Assistance Provided by MEPI, State INL, and
MCC:
The Department of State's Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and
Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (State
INL) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) provide democracy
assistance in a much narrower set of countries than USAID, State DRL or
NED programs.
MEPI:
MEPI, part of State's Near Eastern Affairs Bureau, was launched in
December 2002 as a presidential initiative to promote reform, foster
democracy in the Middle East and North Africa, and serve as a tool to
address violent extremism. MEPI programs are focused in 17 countries
and are managed from MEPI's office in Washington, D.C., as well as from
regional offices in Abu Dhabi and Tunis. MEPI programs are organized
generally into four areas, two of which--political participation and
women's empowerment--are characterized as GJD assistance; MEPI funding
for these areas in fiscal years 2006 through 2008 totaled about $110
million. Unlike USAID and State DRL programs, which are generally
focused on individual countries, MEPI programs are often cross-cutting
regional programs that cover a number of different countries.
Consequently, it is not possible to identify MEPI funding by country.
In addition to providing larger grants in response to specific
solicitations, MEPI provides a number of local grants each year
directly to organizations working at the community level. For instance,
MEPI's local grants program in Jordan provides funds to less
experienced NGOs to increase the NGOs' capacity and help them become
eligible for future funding from larger donors such as USAID. Grant
officers in the MEPI office in Washington, D.C., monitor projects
through reviews of grantee quarterly reports and rely on staff in the
regional offices and embassy-based MEPI coordinators to conduct site
visits and coordinate with related USAID assistance programs.
State INL:
State INL's programs within the GJD framework focus on institution
building in the criminal justice sector. State's FACTS database does
not break out State INL's funding for GJD programs in every country;
however, according to a State INL official, the bureau managed $290
million in GJD funding worldwide in fiscal year 2008, directing the
majority of these funds to Afghanistan, Colombia, and Iraq. State INL's
programs support reforms such as reform of criminal procedures codes
and promotion of adversarial and evidentiary trial principles; training
and technical assistance for judges, prosecutors, and defense
attorneys; and anticorruption programs. A wide variety of U.S. law
enforcement and regulatory agencies, international organizations, NGOs,
and international assistance agencies implement State INL's programs.
For example, State INL funds training of prosecutors through the
Department of Justice's Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development,
Assistance and Training. Embassy Law Enforcement Sections oversee State
INL programs implemented in the field and they coordinate democracy
assistance with USAID through embassy-based interagency working groups.
MCC:
MCC is a U.S. government corporation that provides assistance through
multiyear compact agreements with countries that demonstrate commitment
to reducing poverty and stimulating economic growth, in part by
strengthening their democratic institutions and processes.[Footnote 58]
MCC also funds "threshold programs," intended to help countries that do
not qualify for compact assistance to achieve eligibility. During 2008,
MCC had programs providing democracy-related assistance, such as
support for anti-corruption and local governance, in 16 countries.
Although these threshold grants fit within State's definition of GJD,
State does not track these activities or funding. USAID has primary
responsibility for overseeing the implementation of MCC's threshold
programs. USAID monitors MCC threshold programs similarly to its own
democracy and governance programs, through quarterly and end-of-project
reporting by implementing partners and site visits by technical
officers based in USAID missions in the field. In addition, USAID
submits quarterly reports on threshold projects to MCC. According to
USAID officials we met with in Indonesia and Jordan, management of the
MCC threshold projects by USAID mission-based staff--former or current
USAID democracy and governance technical officers--facilitated
effective coordination with USAID's democracy and governance programs.
MCC has threshold projects related to democracy in select countries
that are high in funding (see table 8). For example, in Indonesia, MCC
funded a 2-year, $35 million threshold project, which represents a
large amount of funding when compared to annual funding of $28 million
for the USAID democracy and governance portfolio in Indonesia, $1.1
million for State DRL's grant program, and $1.6 million for the
National Endowment for Democracy.
Table 8: MCC Democracy-Related Threshold Grants to Date (Dollars in
thousands):
Country: Ukraine;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $44,970;
Signing date: 12/4/2006;
Completion date: 12/31/2009.
Country: Indonesia;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $35,000;
Signing date: 11/17/2006;
Completion date: 5/31/2010.
Country: Paraguay;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $28,353;
Signing date: 5/8/2006;
Completion date: 8/31/2009.
Country: Albania;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $25,176;
Signing date: 4/3/2006;
Completion date: 2/28/2011.
Country: Rwanda;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $24,730;
Signing date: 9/24/2008;
Completion date: 12/31/2011.
Country: Moldova;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $24,700;
Signing date: 12/14/2006;
Completion date: 9/30/2009.
Country: Peru;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $24,120;
Signing date: 6/9/2008;
Completion date: 1/31/2011.
Country: Zambia;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $22,735;
Signing date: 5/22/2006;
Completion date: 2/28/2009.
Country: Malawi;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $18,920;
Signing date: 9/23/2005;
Completion date: 9/30/2008.
Country: Jordan;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $16,500;
Signing date: 10/17/2006;
Completion date: 8/29/2009.
Country: Kyrgyz Republic;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $15,494;
Signing date: 3/14/2008;
Completion date: 6/30/2010.
Country: Philippines;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $13,455;
Signing date: 7/26/2006;
Completion date: 5/29/2009.
Country: Kenya;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $12,723;
Signing date: 3/23/2007;
Completion date: 6/30/2010.
Country: Tanzania;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $11,150;
Signing date: 5/3/2006;
Completion date: 12/30/2008.
Country: Uganda;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $10,446;
Signing date: 3/29/2007;
Completion date: 12/31/2009.
Country: Niger;
MCC threshold funding (total ruling justly): $4,190;
Signing date: 3/17/2008;
Completion date: 9/30/2011.
Source: GAO analysis of MCC data.
Note: The signing date is not necessarily the same as the project start
date. There have been two threshold agreements in Albania; the first
was signed on 4/3/2006 and ended 11/15/2008, and a second stage
threshold agreement was signed on 9/29/2008 and has an expected
completion date of 2/28/2011. The funding and corresponding dates for
Albania reflect all ruling justly activities in both of these threshold
agreements.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Listing of Field-Based and Washington, D.C.-Based
Operating Units:
Table 9: Operating Units Receiving GJD Funds between FY 2006 and FY
2008, and Status as Field-Based or Washington, D.C.-Based Operating
Unit:
Field-Based Operating Units:
Afghanistan;
Albania;
Angola;
Armenia;
Azerbaijan;
Bangladesh;
Belarus;
Bolivia;
Bosnia and Herzegovina;
Bulgaria;
Burma;
Burundi;
Cambodia;
Chad;
China;
Colombia;
Croatia;
Cuba;
Democratic Republic of the Congo;
Djibouti;
Dominican Republic;
Ecuador;
Egypt;
El Salvador;
Ethiopia;
Georgia;
Ghana;
Guatemala;
Guinea;
Guyana;
Haiti;
Honduras;
India;
Indonesia;
Iran;
Iraq;
Jamaica;
Jordan;
Kazakhstan;
Kenya;
Kosovo;
Kyrgyz Republic;
Laos;
Lebanon;
Liberia;
Macedonia;
Madagascar;
Malawi;
Mali;
Mauritania;
Mexico;
Moldova;
Mongolia;
Montenegro;
Morocco;
Mozambique;
Namibia;
Nepal;
Nicaragua;
Nigeria;
Pakistan;
Panama;
Paraguay;
Peru;
Philippines;
Romania;
Russia;
Rwanda;
Senegal;
Serbia;
Sierra Leone;
Somalia;
South Africa;
Sri Lanka;
Sudan;
Tajikistan;
Tanzania;
Thailand;
Timor-Leste;
Tunisia;
Turkmenistan;
Uganda;
Ukraine;
Uzbekistan;
Venezuela;
Vietnam;
West Bank and Gaza;
Yemen;
Zambia;
Zimbabwe;
Central Asia Regional;
USAID Central America Regional;
USAID East Africa Regional;
USAID Middle East Regional;
USAID Southern Africa Regional;
USAID West Africa Regional.
Washington, D.C.-Based Operating Units:
Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance;
Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (State DRL);
Economic Growth Agriculture and Trade;
State Eurasia Regional;
State Europe Regional;
International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (State INL);
International Organizations;
Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI);
ODP - Office of Development Partners;
Policy and Program Coordination;
State Africa Regional;
State East Asia and Pacific Regional;
State South and Central Asia Regional;
State Western Hemisphere Regional;
USAID Africa Regional;
USAID Asia Middle East Regional.
Source: GAO analysis of State data.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the U.S. Agency for International
Development:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
USAID:
From The American People:
September 17, 2009:
David Gootnick:
Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Gootnick:
I am pleased to provide the U.S. Agency for International Development's
(USAID) formal response to the draft GAO report entitled "Democracy
Assistance: U.S. Agencies Take Steps to Coordinate International
Programs but Lack Information on Some U.S.-Funded Activities" (GAO-09-
993).
USAID would like to provide additional comments pertaining to one of
the four main questions identified in the engagement memo dated August
14, 2008: "How do State and USAID plan and evaluate Democracy and
Governance programs?" The enclosed statement clarifies and adds to the
report's analysis of USAID planning and evaluation processes. In
addition, the draft report contains a single recommendation related to
improved coordination with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).
USAID broadly concurs with this recommendation, but we provide some
specific comments in the enclosure.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the GAO draft report and
for the courtesies extended by your staff in the conduct of this
review.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Drew W. Luten:
Acting Assistant Administrator:
Bureau for Management:
Encl: Management's Comments on Draft Report:
[End of letter]
Comments Related to Strategic and Program Planning:
GAO's examination of USAID's policies and procedures related to
Democracy and Governance (DG) programming was primarily focused on two
aspects of our "business model" - the interagency budget process and
the process for selecting and awarding implementing mechanisms. While
these two aspects are important, and are covered quite effectively in
this report, to a large extent, it is strategic planning that drives
the budget and program selection process. In other words, the outcome
of our planning process is a major determinant of country DG budgets
and the implementing mechanisms that are ultimately selected. The
report would be strengthened by further discussion of this
relationship.
USAID's strategic approach is to develop a 3-5 year DG country
strategy, generally as part of a larger mission strategy, that is
targeted toward the key constraints to democratic reform and good
governance in that country. This process typically starts with a DG
assessment that is specifically designed to help define a country-
appropriate strategy and programs. As briefly noted in the report, the
strategic planning process is formalized by Agency directives. Once the
strategic plan is approved, individual programs are designed to fit
into the overall priorities and objectives laid out in the strategic
plan. This program design includes the procedures to select the
implementer and to monitor and evaluate program performance. [See
comment 1]
Therefore, how individual grants or contracts are awarded is just one
step of a larger program cycle that is driven by planning.
USAID's DG Program Cycle:
Assessment;
Implementation;
Evaluation.
Comments Related to Monitoring and Evaluation:
USAID greatly appreciated GAO's comprehensive study of our ongoing
efforts to improve the quality and quantity of our program evaluations
generally, and in the democracy and governance sector, specifically.
However, USAID believes our understanding of what works and what
doesn't in the field of DG assistance would be enriched by further
examination and discussion in the report of State Department and NED
policies and procedures for evaluating DG programs. [See comment 2]
We have identified a few areas that should be clarified related to
USAID's evaluation efforts. The draft report notes in several places
that USAID has undertaken six pilot impact evaluations as part of our
efforts to implement the recommendations of the National Academies of
Science. In addition, USAID now routinely trains DG officers in how to
conduct impact evaluations, and has hired experts in evaluation
methodologies to improve our overall institutional capacity. The report
also states in several places that USAID often develops custom
indicators to assess individual projects in addition to reporting on
standard indicators. In fact, these custom indicators exist for
virtually every program as part of mandatory performance management
plans (PMPs) that are used internally to conduct an ongoing assessment
of program impact. PMPs are a very important tool that USAID uses for
program evaluation. [See comment 3]
Comments Related to Audit Recommendation:
Draft Recommendation: To enhance coordination of U.S.-funded democracy
assistance efforts, and in support of the Department of State's first
Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, we recommend that the
Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator, while recognizing NED's
status as a private nonprofit organization, work jointly with NED to
establish a mechanism to regularly collect information about NED's
current projects in countries where NED and State or USAID provide
democracy assistance.
USAID Response: USAID concurs that in countries where we provide
democracy assistance, USAID missions and the Democracy, Conflict, and
Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) Bureau would benefit from information on
current NED projects. It is also worth noting that current coordination
mechanisms between NED and the Europe Bureau at State appear to be
effective and may serve as a model for world-wide efforts.
The following are GAO's comments on USAID's letter dated September 17,
2009.
GAO Comments:
1. We have incorporated information provided in USAID's letter
regarding its democracy strategic planning efforts into our report as
appropriate.
2. As we state in our discussion of scope and methodology, we did not
review State DRL's and NED's evaluation efforts because their programs
are small and short-term relative to USAID's and because they generally
do not conduct independent evaluations of their activities' impact.
3. We have incorporated evaluation information provided in USAID's
letter into our report as appropriate.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the Department of State:
United States Department of State:
Assistant Secretary and Chief Financial Officer:
Washington, DC 20520:
September 17, 2009:
Ms. Jacquelyn Williams-Bridgers:
Managing Director:
International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001:
Dear Ms. Williams-Bridgers:
We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, "Democracy
Assistance: U.S. Agencies Take Steps to Coordinate International
Programs but Lack Information on Some U.S.-funded Activities," GAO Job
Code 320619.
The enclosed Department of State comments are provided for
incorporation with this letter as an appendix to the final report.
If you have any questions concerning this response, please contact
Rozina Damanwala, Program Analyst, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights
and Labor at (202) 663-2689.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
James L. Millette:
cc: GAO - Leslie Holen:
DRL - Karen B. Stewart:
State/OIG - Mark Duda:
[End of letter]
Department of State Comments on GAO Draft Report:
DEMOCRACY ASSISTANCE: U.S. Agencies Take Steps to Coordinate
International Programs but lack Information on Some U.S.-funded
Activities (GAO-09-993, GAO Code 320619):
The Department of State appreciates the opportunity to comment on GAO's
draft report entitled "Democracy Assistance: U.S. Agencies Take Steps
to Coordinate International Programs but lack Information on Some US.-
funded Activities."
The GAO report recommends the following to the Secretary of State:
Recommendation: To enhance coordination of U.S.-funded democracy
assistance, the Secretary of State and the USAID Administrator work
jointly with NED to establish a mechanism to collect information about
NED's current projects in countries where NED and State or USAID
provide democracy assistance.
Response: The Department concurs with the GAO's assessment that
improved coordination with the NED could enhance the effectiveness of
U.S. democracy assistance efforts and agrees, to work with USAID and
the NED to assess how to develop a cost-effective and sustainable
process to meet this objective.
The Department notes that coordination and information sharing have
improved in recent years in part as a result of foreign assistance
reform efforts to integrate and make more transparent State and USAID
budget formulation, planning and performance monitoring. These efforts
include the development of a standard set of foreign assistance
definitions used by all Department and USAID implementing offices,
bureaus and overseas missions to describe the budget as well as a
budget data system that captures Department and USAID foreign
assistance budget information for both agencies in a common format.
The Department also notes that in order to ensure effective use of
funding, DRL has made it a priority proactively to include relevant USG
actors, such as USAID, Department of Labor, and the Broadcasting Board
of Governors, in its planning and program solicitation process. This
collaborative approach allows DRL to fund innovative programs that
focus on responding swiftly to emerging events of importance.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the National Endowment for Democracy:
National Endowment for Democracy:
"Supporting freedom around the world"
1025 F Street, NW:
Suite 800:
Washington, DC 20004-1409:
(202) 378-9700:
(202) 378-9407, fax:
E-mail: info@ned.org:
[hyperlink, http://www-ned.org]
September 14, 2009:
Mr. David B. Gootnick:
Director, International Affairs and Trade:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Gootnick:
Thank you for sharing with us a draft copy of the forthcoming report
requested by Congress on U.S.-funded efforts to assist democracy
abroad. (GAO-09-993).
We believe the report offers an accurate description of the work of the
National Endowment for Democracy. We also endorse the report's emphasis
on the importance of sharing information about our programs with the
other providers of assistance, since we agree that such sharing not
only helps avoid duplication of effort but also is useful for helping
funders develop their program-related strategies more broadly.
The report indicates that in some of the countries in which research
was carried out, USAID and State DRL officials said that they lacked
information about NED's current projects. This has occurred even though
we provide Congress annually with a report describing each of the
grants we award, share these reports with officials at the State
Department and AID, and readily offer information to anyone at State
and AID about any program when asked. We do recognize that the most
recent annual report will obviously not capture new programs that have
commenced since the report was issued, a matter that we will be
addressing through reporting them on our website after grant agreements
have been signed.
The report also points out that the problem of a lack of information
does not exist for projects in former Soviet Union and Eastern European
countries, for which there is a coordinator's office that collects the
information quarterly and circulates it to the relevant AID missions
and U.S. embassies.
We believe that this matter can and should be addressed. We endorse the
recommendation that the State Department and USAID work jointly with
NED to establish a mechanism to collect information about NED's current
projects, one that is designed in such a way as to minimize additional
administrative burden and avoid straining staff resources on all sides.
For example, we are willing to send to DRL brief descriptions of
programs following their approval at quarterly Board meetings, provided
the Bureau is willing to offer a point of contact who would be prepared
on a consistent basis to collect this information and share it with the
relevant officials both in Washington and in the field.
We would also like to take this opportunity to say a word about NED's
evaluation of programs, a subject that the report does not address due
to our not conducting "impact" evaluations. This may be true in a
literal sense, given all the methodological difficulties of doing so,
as explained in our March 2006 report to the Congress entitled
"Evaluating Democracy Promotion Programs." Nevertheless, it is worth
noting that NED's multi-sectoral approach to grant making entails a
unique system of evaluation. At the micro level, Endowment staff
members conduct continual monitoring of progress toward specific
grantee project objectives. Independent evaluations are conducted at
the mid-level by external consultants hired by the Endowment. Such
evaluations cover a span of at least five years and might examine a
subset of projects within one country or explore a theme across
countries.
We are taking this opportunity to share with you a copy of our 2006
report, whose appendix, written by Professor Michael McFaul (who was
then Director of the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of
Law at Stanford University), proposes a research design for assessing
the nature and extent of the influence of international democracy
assistance on domestic democratic change in different types of regimes.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Richard Gephardt:
Chairman:
Signed by:
Carl Gershman:
President:
Enclosure:
Cc: Leslie Holen:
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
David B. Gootnick (202) 512-3149 or gootnickd@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Leslie Holen, Assistant
Director; Diana Blumenfeld; Howard Cott; David Dornisch; Reid Lowe;
Grace Lui; and Marisela Perez made key contributions to this report.
Etana Finkler provided technical support.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] USAID, State DRL, and NED--referred to in this report as
implementing entities--provide U.S. funding for democracy assistance
programs implemented by partners such as nongovernmental organizations.
Other implementing entities, including the Millennium Challenge
Corporation (MCC) as well as State's Middle East Peace Initiative
(MEPI) and Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement
Affairs (State INL), also provide U.S.-funded democracy assistance in
some of these countries (see appendix III for more information about
these other implementing entities' democracy assistance efforts in
fiscal years 2006-2008). Various other State offices, such as regional
bureaus and the Bureau of International Organization Affairs, also
receive small amounts of funding for democracy assistance efforts.
[2] Foreign policy observers have written of the potential for
fragmented and duplicative U.S. democracy promotion activities, which
are often provided by multiple entities. For example, see Thomas O.
Melia, "The Democracy Bureaucracy: The Infrastructure of American
Democracy Promotion" (discussion paper prepared for the Princeton
Project on National Security, September 2005); and Susan B. Epstein,
Nina M. Serafino, and Francis T. Miko, Democracy Promotion: Cornerstone
of U.S. Foreign Policy?, RL34296 (Washington, D.C.: Congressional
Research Service, 2008).
[3] We previously reported on State's foreign aid reform efforts. See
GAO, Foreign Aid Reform: Comprehensive Strategy, Interagency
Coordination, and Operational Improvements Would Bolster Current
Efforts, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-192]
(Washington, D.C.: Apr.17, 2009).
[4] State and USAID define GJD as encompassing activities aiming to
promote and strengthen effective democracies in recipient states and
move them along a continuum toward democratic consolidation. GJD and
the other four strategic objectives--Peace and Security, Investing in
People, Economic Growth, and Humanitarian Assistance--are part of the
Foreign Assistance Framework.
[5] The Office of Democracy and Governance, within the Bureau for
Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance, is responsible for
supporting and advancing USAID's democracy and governance programming
worldwide. Its primary objective is to work with USAID missions,
regional and pillar bureaus, and other U.S. government partners to
incorporate democracy and governance as a key element in foreign
assistance programming.
[6] We did not review State DRL and NED practices for assessing results
and evaluating impact, because their programs are small and short term
relative to USAID's. According to State DRL officials, State DRL
recommends that grantees conduct independent external evaluations as
part of individual grant awards but has not undertaken standard
independent evaluations of democracy assistance at the country or
thematic level. NED commissions periodic independent evaluations of
clusters of programs but does not evaluate every grant. See appendix I
for more information about our scope and methodology.
[7] We focused our work on these three entities because each conducts
democracy assistance projects in most recipient countries around the
world. In contrast, other entities providing U.S.-funded democracy
assistance, such as MEPI and State INL, conduct projects in a much
smaller number of countries.
[8] In 9 of the 10 countries, USAID manages its democracy assistance
projects from country-based missions. The one exception is in China,
where USAID does not have a mission. Instead, USAID's Regional
Development Mission for Asia, which is based in Bangkok, Thailand,
manages USAID's Democracy and Governance projects in China.
[9] National Research Council, Improving Democracy Assistance: Building
Knowledge through Evaluations and Research (Washington, D.C.: National
Academies Press, 2008). The report can be accessed at [hyperlink,
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12164].
[10] State/F defines an operating unit as the organizational unit
responsible for implementing a foreign assistance program for one or
more elements of the foreign assistance framework. For example, all
country missions; all regional offices, such as USAID West Africa
Regional office; and all Washington-based bureaus, such as USAID
Democracy Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance, are separate operating
units. In fiscal year 2008, State/F listed 166 operating units based in
the field, including 155 country missions and 11 USAID regional
offices, as well as 24 State and USAID regional and functional bureaus
based in Washington, D.C.
[11] We requested USAID funding data for all country missions; however,
with our concurrence, State/F excluded USAID funding data for Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan owing to the unique and complex circumstances
in those countries.
[12] According to joint State/F-USAID guidance, evaluation is a
systematic and objective assessment, designed to determine the
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, or impacts, of an
ongoing or completed project, program, strategy, or policy. The purpose
of an evaluation is to generate credible and useful information that
contributes to improved performance, accountability, or learning from
the experience, to assess the program's effects or impacts, and to
inform decisions about future programming. Planning and Performance
Management Unit, Evaluation Guidelines for Foreign Assistance, Final
Version (Washington, D.C.: Office of the Director of U.S. Foreign
Assistance, 2009).
[13] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-192].
[14] FACTS was designed to collect foreign assistance planning,
reporting, and funding data; FACTS Info was designed to aggregate,
analyze, and report data on U.S. foreign assistance programs. For more
information about these databases, see GAO, Foreign Assistance: State
Department Foreign Aid Information Systems Have Improved Change
Management Practices but Do Not Follow Risk Management Best Practices,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-52R] (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 21, 2008).
[15] According to State, the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review leadership team will also include senior representation from the
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
[16] Freedom House conducts an annual survey of the state of global
freedom as experienced by individuals. The survey is intended to
measure freedom--defined as the opportunity to act spontaneously in a
variety of fields outside the control of the government and other
centers of potential domination--according to two broad categories:
political rights and civil liberties.
[17] State DRL typically does not have dedicated staff in U.S.
embassies to manage its democracy grants; instead, the bureau works
with foreign service officers covering the human rights and labor
portfolios in the embassy, according to State DRL officials. State DRL
has one full-time contractor at the U.S. embassy in China and two full-
time foreign service officers at the U.S. embassy in Iraq; in both
countries, State DRL is operating significantly larger democracy
programs than it does elsewhere.
[18] The legislation authorizing funding for NED, National Endowment
for Democracy Act, spells out six purposes for the endowment:
encouraging democratic institutions through private sector initiatives;
facilitating exchanges between U.S. private sector groups and
democratic groups abroad; promoting U.S. nongovernmental participation
in democratic training programs; strengthening democratic electoral
processes abroad in cooperation with indigenous democratic forces;
supporting the participation of U.S. private sector groups in fostering
cooperation with those abroad "dedicated to the cultural values,
institutions, and organizations of democratic pluralism;" and
encouraging democratic development consistent with the interests of
both the United States and the democratic groups in other countries
receiving assistance from programs funded by the Endowment. See Pub. L.
No. 98-164, Title V, 97 Stat. 1017 (1983).
[19] Although NED's programs support democracy promotion, State does
not include NED's core appropriation in its calculation of foreign
assistance because NED's annual core appropriation is usually requested
and appropriated in the Diplomatic and Consular account, not in the
Foreign Operations appropriation. In fiscal year 2008 only, NED's core
budget was appropriated under Foreign Operations and, therefore, part
of total funding for GJD foreign assistance funds.
[20] See Pub. L. No. 98-164. Section 504 requires NED to provide an
annual report to Congress of its activities and accomplishments and
makes NED subject to audits by GAO.
[21] Unlike NED's core appropriation, these directed or discretionary
grants are counted as GJD funding.
[22] NED's core institutes--the American Center for International Labor
Solidarity (also known as the Solidarity Center), the Center for
International Private Enterprise, the International Republican
Institute, and the National Democratic Institute--represent,
respectively, organized labor, business, and the two major U.S.
political parties. Projects implemented by the core institutes are
subject to approval by the NED Board of Directors and oversight by NED
staff. The institutes also participate in NED's planning process.
[23] Each operating unit enters information into the databases from its
annual operational plan, showing how it intends to use the current
year's funding allocation, including the amounts to be programmed by
implementing entities. After funding is allocated to a field-based
operating unit, such as a country mission, that operating unit
determines the amount of funding to be implemented by USAID and other
entities that implement funds at the mission. State officials noted
that because these databases and reporting tools were developed in 2006
and refined in 2008, the databases were not completely populated with
information for every operating unit by fiscal year 2008. However,
State officials noted that aggregated funding information broken out by
implementing entity may become available in the future as the databases
become more complete. For more information about the development of
State/F's databases, see GAO-09-192.
[24] Although State DRL is an implementing entity, the State/F
information systems show GJD funds allocated to State DRL because it is
also considered to be a Washington, D.C.-based operating unit.
[25] We requested USAID funding data for all country missions; however,
with our concurrence, State/F excluded USAID funding data for Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Pakistan owing to the unique and complex circumstances
in those countries.
[26] The 10 countries in our sample are China, the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, Haiti, Indonesia, Jordan, Kosovo, Lebanon, Nicaragua,
Pakistan, and Russia.
[27] Internal program assessments are commissioned at the mission
level. Sectorwide program assessments follow a specific framework,
USAID: Conducting A DG Assessment: A Framework for Strategy
Development, November 2000. This framework recommends that these
assessments can be accomplished with three-person teams, one of whom
should know the country very well, conducting 3 weeks of field work,
plus some preparation and follow-up time.
[28] State DRL funded democracy programs in 66 countries in fiscal
years 2006 through 2008.
[29] In fiscal year 2008, State DRL-managed funding for democracy
grants included specific congressionally directed funding levels for
several countries, including Iraq, China, Hong Kong, Tibet, Syria,
Iran, and North Korea, among others, as well as for internet freedom
and religious freedom programs.
[30] State regional bureaus and USAID each have one of seven votes on
these review panels.
[31] NED per-country funding ranged from $25,000 to more than
$6,000,000 across 94 countries in fiscal year 2008.
[32] NED has a board of 28 officers and directors, including foreign
policy experts and current and former members of Congress.
[33] The NED Act requires NED to report annually to Congress on its
operations, activities, and accomplishments as well as on the results
of an independent financial audit. The act does not require NED to
report to State on the use of its core appropriation; however, State
requires NED to provide quarterly financial reporting and annual
programmatic reporting on the use of the congressionally directed and
discretionary grants it receives from State.
[34] See appendix II, table 6, for information on State DRL's democracy
assistance funding.
[35] A USAID representative is part of State DRL's panels to review
State DRL project proposals.
[36] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-192].
[37] The countries are Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Honduras, Jamaica, Morocco, Mozambique, Nepal,
the Philippines, and Tanzania.
[38] USAID issued guidance in September 2009 that in countries where a
joint country assistance strategy is not in place or not under
development, USAID Missions may develop an interim long-term (3 to 5
years), USAID-only country strategic plan. If a joint country
assistance strategy is subsequently approved, it will supersede USAID's
strategic plan.
[39] State's EUR/ACE oversees the bilateral economic, security,
democracy, and humanitarian assistance of all U.S. government agencies
providing assistance to 18 states of the former Soviet Union and
Eastern Europe. The office is part of State's Bureau of European and
Eurasian Affairs and was established by the Support for East European
Democracy Act of 1989 (Public Law 101-179), as amended, and the FREEDOM
Support Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-511), as amended.
[40] NED officials also indicated that having more access to
information on State DRL and USAID projects could help inform NED's
programming decisions.
[41] According to State officials, U.S. embassies in former Soviet
Republics and Eastern European countries, including Russia and Kosovo,
have a designated coordinator of all U.S. assistance programs, usually
the Deputy Chief of Mission or a dedicated staff person.
[42] The standard indicators we describe are those that State/F refers
to as element-level indicators. State/F has defined three types of
standard indicators: (1) strategic-level indicators, intended to
capture the impact of foreign and host-government efforts at the
objective level; (2) program area-level indicators, intended to measure
country performance within subsectors of the five foreign assistance
program objectives and to measure results beyond what could be achieved
solely by U.S. government-funded interventions; and (3) element-level
indicators, intended primarily to measure outputs that are directly
attributable to U.S. government programs, projects, and activities.
[43] The standard indicators are tied to State/F's standardized program
structure, which provides uniform program categories and associated
definitions to describe and account for foreign assistance programs.
The standardized program structure serves as the foundation of the
integrated State and USAID foreign assistance budget requests, annual
operational plans and performance reporting.
[44] Beginning in fiscal year 2008, State/F requires USAID and DRL to
assess and report the results of their democracy assistance activities,
providing standard indicators for monitoring reports.
[45] Outcome and impact indicators measure policy-relevant effects of a
program.
[46] In its operational plan guidance for fiscal year 2007, State/F
acknowledges that the standard indicators may not capture all ongoing
programs or their outcomes and encourages the limited use of additional
output, outcome, or impact indicators, called custom indicators, to
establish targets and monitor the progress and impacts of interventions
at the implementing mechanism level [Office of the Director of Foreign
Assistance, U.S. Foreign Assistance Performance Indicators for Use in
Developing FY2007 Operational Plans (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of State, 2006).] In addition, USAID guidance on performance monitoring
and evaluation mandates that each mission collect performance
indicators on every assistance objective (project). The guidance
defines performance indicators as both quantitative and qualitative
indicators that include custom project indicators and State/F standard
indicators. (USAID, Automated Directives System, chap. 203.3.4.)
[47] In this report, "independent evaluations" refers to evaluations
conducted by third parties, versus end-of-project reports completed by
implementing entities or implementing partners. In joint guidance
issued in March 2009, State/F and USAID define evaluation as a
systematic and objective assessment of an ongoing or completed project,
program, strategy or policy, designed to determine the relevance,
effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, or impacts of an
intervention, strategy, or policy. The guidance characterizes
evaluations as episodic or ad hoc and notes that they are often
performed by independent contractors. Office of the Director of U.S.
Foreign Assistance, Evaluation Guidelines for Foreign Assistance
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State, 2009).
[48] The review projects the number of evaluations for 1999; in 2001,
when the review was published, there were 68 evaluations. Cynthia Clapp-
Wincek and Richard Blue, Evaluations of USAID's Recent Evaluation
Experience, USAID Working Paper No. 320 (Washington, D.C.: USAID,
2001).
[49] USAID had 96 active projects in January 2009. In the 10 sample
countries, the seven evaluations were for projects completed in fiscal
years 2006 through 2008: three in Indonesia, two in Jordan, and two in
Kosovo. USAID recommends, but does not require, that missions allocate
7 to 10 percent of their budget for evaluations.
[50] Recent studies have highlighted the difficulties of measuring the
impact of democracy assistance. For example, in 2006, NED reported that
demonstrating causality between a democracy project and a country's
progress toward democracy is difficult because many other variables
come into play. See National Endowment for Democracy, Evaluating
Democracy Promotion Programs: A Report to Congress from the National
Endowment for Democracy, submitted to the House and Senate
Appropriation Committees in response to a request for a report
contained in the conference report (H. Rept. 109-272 at 195 (2005))
accompanying the Science, State, Justice, Commerce Appropriations Act
for FY2006 (H.R. 2862). However, a 2006 USAID-funded independent study
of the effects of foreign assistance on democracy in 165 countries
between 1990 and 2005 found that USAID democracy assistance at the
country (versus project) level had a significant and positive, albeit
moderate, impact on democracy in the country. (see Steven E. Finkel,
Aníbal Pérez-Liñán, Mitchell A. Seligson, C. Neal Tate, Deepening Our
Understanding of the Effects of US Foreign Assistance on Democracy
Building, Final Report (Washington, D.C.: USAID, 2008).
[51] Specifically, 14 survey respondents indicated that the assessments
were moderately or very useful, and 4 respondents indicated that the
assessments were somewhat useful; the remaining 13 respondents did not
respond to our question about the assessments.
[52] According to State DRL officials, State DRL recommends that its
grantees conduct independent external evaluations as part of individual
grant awards but has not undertaken standard independent evaluations of
democracy assistance at the country or thematic level. NED commissions
periodic independent evaluations of clusters of programs but does not
evaluate every grant.
[53] National Research Council, Improving Democracy Assistance:
Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research.
[54] Because of the preliminary nature of USAID's reported actions in
response to the National Research Council report, we did not verify or
assess these actions.
[55] We originally requested USAID funding data for all country
missions, however with our concurrence, State/F excluded USAID funding
data for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan due to the unique and complex
circumstances in those countries.
[56] MCC has six indicators under the category of Ruling Justly: Civil
Liberties, Political Rights, Voice and Accountability, Government
Effectiveness, Rule of Law, and Control of Corruption. USAID, which
implements MCC threshold programs, categorizes threshold programs
related to these six indicators as democracy assistance.
[57] National Research Council, Improving Democracy Assistance:
Building Knowledge through Evaluations and Research.
[58] The Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-199, Division
D, Title VI) authorizes MCC to provide assistance to eligible countries
that enter into public compacts with the United States. Countries'
eligibility is determined in part by their scores against indicators
divided into three categories: Ruling Justly, Economic Freedom, and
Investing in People. According to USAID officials, the six Ruling
Justly indicators--(1) political rights, (2) civil liberties, (3) voice
and accountability, (4) government effectiveness, (5) rule of law, and
(6) control of corruption--relate to democracy assistance.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: